The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewPat Buchanan Archive
Is Trump Assembling a War Cabinet?
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

The last man standing between the U.S. and war with Iran may be a four-star general affectionately known to his Marines as “Mad Dog.”

Gen. James Mattis, the secretary of defense, appears to be the last man in the Situation Room who believes the Iran nuclear deal may be worth preserving and that war with Iran is a dreadful idea.

Yet, other than Mattis, President Donald Trump seems to be creating a war cabinet.

Trump himself has pledged to walk away from the Iran nuclear deal — “the worst deal ever” — and reimpose sanctions in May.

His new national security adviser John Bolton, who wrote an op-ed titled “To Stop Iran’s Bomb, Bomb Iran,” has called for preemptive strikes and “regime change.”

Secretary of State-designate Mike Pompeo calls Iran “a thuggish police state,” a “despotic theocracy,” and “the vanguard of a pernicious empire that is expanding its power and influence across the Middle East.”

Trump’s favorite Arab ruler, 32-year-old Saudi Prince Mohammed bin Salman, calls Iran’s Ayatollah Khamenei “the Hitler of the Middle East.”

Bibi Netanyahu is monomaniacal on Iran, calling the nuclear deal a threat to Israel’s survival and Iran “the greatest threat to our world.”

U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley echoes them all.

Yet Iran appears not to want a war. U.N. inspectors routinely confirm that Iran is strictly abiding by the terms of the nuclear deal.

While U.S. warships in the Persian Gulf often encountered Iranian “fast attack” boats and drones between January 2016 and August 2017, that has stopped. Vessels of both nations have operated virtually without incident.

What would be the result of Trump’s trashing of the nuclear deal?

First would be the isolation of the United States.

China and Russia would not abrogate the deal but would welcome Iran into their camp. England, France and Germany would have to choose between the deal and the U.S. And if Airbus were obligated to spurn Iran’s orders for hundreds of new planes, how would that sit with the Europeans?

How would North Korea react if the U.S. trashed a deal where Iran, after accepting severe restrictions on its nuclear program and allowing intrusive inspections, were cheated of the benefits the Americans promised?

Why would Pyongyang, having seen us attack Iraq, which had no WMD, and Libya, which had given up its WMD to mollify us, ever consider given up its nuclear weapons — especially after seeing the leaders of both nations executed?

And, should the five other signatories to the Iran deal continue with it despite us, and Iran agree to abide by its terms, what do we do then?

Find a casus belli to go to war? Why? How does Iran threaten us?

ORDER IT NOW

A war, which would involve U.S. warships against swarms of Iranian torpedo boats could shut down the Persian Gulf to oil traffic and produce a crisis in the global economy. Anti-American Shiite jihadists in Beirut, Baghdad and Bahrain could attack U.S. civilian and military personnel.

As the Army and Marine Corps do not have the troops to invade and occupy Iran, would we have to reinstate the draft?

And if we decided to blockade and bomb Iran, we would have to take out all its anti-ship missiles, submarines, navy, air force, ballistic missiles and air defense system.

And would not a pre-emptive strike on Iran unite its people in hatred of us, just as Japan’s pre-emptive strike on Pearl Harbor united us in a determination to annihilate her empire?

What would the Dow Jones average look like after an attack on Iran?

Trump was nominated because he promised to keep us out of stupid wars like those into which folks like John Bolton and the Bush Republicans plunged us.

After 17 years, we are still mired in Afghanistan, trying to keep the Taliban we overthrew in 2001 from returning to Kabul. Following our 2003 invasion, Iraq, once a bulwark against Iran, became a Shiite ally of Iran.

The rebels we supported in Syria have been routed. And Bashar Assad — thanks to backing from Russia, Iran, Hezbollah and Shiite militias from the Middle East and Central Asia — has secured his throne.

The Kurds who trusted us have been hammered by our NATO ally Turkey in Syria, and by the Iraqi Army we trained in Iraq.

What is Trump, who assured us there would be no more stupid wars, thinking? Truman and LBJ got us into wars they could not end, and both lost their presidencies. Eisenhower and Nixon ended those wars and were rewarded with landslides.

After his smashing victory in Desert Storm, Bush I was denied a second term. After invading Iraq, Bush II lost both houses of Congress in 2006, and his party lost the presidency in 2008 to the antiwar Barack Obama.

Once Trump seemed to understand this history.

Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book, “Nixon’s White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever.”

Copyright 2018 Creators.com.

 
• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: American Military, Donald Trump, Iran, Neocons 
Hide 191 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Anonymous[400] • Disclaimer says:

    Yes.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  2. peterAUS says:

    A couple of changes.
    1.
    From:

    A war, which would involve U.S. warships against swarms of Iranian torpedo boats could shut down the Persian Gulf to oil traffic and produce a crisis in the global economy.

    to:

    A war, which would involve U.S. warships against naval mines and sea-skimmers could shut down the Persian Gulf to oil traffic and produce a crisis in the global economy. That would require a limited invasion and occupation.Re 2.

    2.
    From:

    As the Army and Marine Corps do not have the troops to invade and occupy Iran.

    To:

    As the Army and Marine Corps do have the troops to invade and occupy parts of Hormu in order to keep it open for the oil traffic. Re 1.

    From:

    And if we decided to blockade and bomb Iran, we would have to take out all its anti-ship missiles, submarines, navy, air force, ballistic missiles and air defense system.

    to:

    And if we decided to blockade and bomb Iran, we would have to take out most of air force, ballistic missiles and air defense system.
    Then just …….keep ……….bombing….until the regime in Tehran submit to our demands.

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    You are assuming no one will supply Iran with air defense systems or other military hardware to inflict casualties on the US. That assumption could prove wrong.

    It took three months to convince Serbia to submit to US demands. How long will it take the vastly larger Iranian regime to do so..?
    , @bluedog
    One thing you can always rely on is a stupid post from Peter the Great>>>
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  3. CalDre says:

    Once Trump seemed to understand this history.

    The Orangutan is an obedient servant to his Masters. Always has been. If he weren’t a reliable puppet of the ((global oligarchs)) he would never have been elected (largely as a result of billions of free media attention he garnered from the ((global oligarchs)).

    It is quite obvious the ((global oligarchs)) have some major calamity in mind for the Trump presidency, which will be used to sully what little strands of “nationalism” are left in the political discourse. Perhaps a world war and major economic collapse. Which will be used to usher in the global dictatorship the ((global oligarchs)) have been thirsting after for centuries.

    It’s not clear if Trump understands his humiliating role, his ego seems lofty enough that he could easily miss how he is being played, but he plays his role fairly well.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "Which will be used to usher in the global dictatorship the ((global oligarchs)) have been thirsting after for centuries."

    Assuming this to be true, what are you personally doing to stop it? Are you willing to organize an outright rebellion against the banksters and Zionists and SAVE "your" nation from destruction, or are you going to just tap away at your keyboard the same tripe without lifting a finger to keep your progeny from becoming a slave just like yourself?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  4. Iran will likely try to attack Israel from its bases in Syria and that could set the stage for a two front war for Israel against Lebanon in the North and Iran in the Northeast near the Golan Heights.

    America must come to her friend Israel’s aid should this happen. Trump will do the right thing and help out Israel.

    Tear up that deal! Long live Israel!

    Read More
    • Replies: @JerseyJeffersonian
    Why don't you fight your own wars for a change? But then, that would violate centuries of precedents of duping others into doing it for you, and all while your exploit the situation to profit from the conflict. So I guess it'll be SOP, eh?

    Oh, by the way, death to Israel.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  5. Giuseppe says:

    What would be the result of Trump’s trashing of the nuclear deal?

    First would be the isolation of the United States.

    The silver lining of said isolation would be that, through the loss of the respect of the world, it hastens the day of the imperial train wreck. Since Trump has been very ineffective at draining the swamp, maybe he can at least be counted on to weaken the empire. Whatever it takes.

    And Pat is spot on about no forthcoming nuclear deal with Pyongyang if Trump tears up the one with Tehran.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  6. Anon[425] • Disclaimer says: • Website

    When the president feels weak at home, he flexes his muscles abroad.

    Same old song.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  7. I wonder how ordinary Saudis feel about U.S./Israeli puppet Prince Mohammed Bin Salman?

    Does it bother them that he’s about to completely sell out their nation or are they too busy shopping, watching football and drifting in tricked out Mustangs to care?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  8. anonymous[340] • Disclaimer says:

    This is about as good as one can hope for from Mr. Buchanan.

    After so many years in Washington, even “Mr. Paleoconservative” can’t conceive of a distinction between the American people and their rulers. Just count the uses of “we,” “us,” and “our” that keep people marinated in the sense that, because they live in Oklahoma, they must root for Uncle Sam.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  9. Virgile says:

    Maybe that Trump has assembled all these hawks to oblige them to propose the way to conduct these wars that they have been advocating for years. They will be pressed to come up with something quickly. They may not agree with each other and be overwhelmed by the negative consequence of such wars and they would freak out.
    This is maybe Trump’s way to neutralize them and the neocons behind them . “If you cant beat them join them ” and destroy them from inside. Then kick them out…
    Maybe I am giving to Trump more intelligence that he has!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Harold Smith
    "Maybe I am giving to Trump more intelligence that he has!"

    It doesn't seem like a very intelligent plan to "neutralize them" by giving them enough rope to hang themselves - and everybody else on this planet - when he could do something like investigate 9/11 for example, does it?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  10. Two thumbs up Pat! “stupid wars” courtesy of bolton, bush, and the rest of that bunch of warmongering chicken littles. Bolton is Trump’s worst pick by far. Trump said he was going to get us out of expensive no-hoper foreign military excursions …. so he picks Bolton? WTH? We’ll be bombing Switzerland and Canada any day now, you never know those “bad guys” are everywhere! We never will get out from under our $19T in debt running mega-expensive supply lines 10,000 miles long. Trump says “no one will mess with us.” Who is messing with us right now? China, I got it, military build-up. While we p** away trillions paying military contractors small fortunes to stay in sandholes for decades doing nothing, the Chinese invest in their infrastructure and wait out our stupidity.

    OK that ought to be enough to get me flamed for a few years

    Read More
    • Replies: @myself
    Nah, IMHO China is messing with nobody.

    No nation (China) that spends a mere 1.6% of its GDP on the military is looking to start any wars.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  11. Nexus321 says:

    Is Pompeo the fuckwit taking about the US given his comments…“the vanguard of a pernicious empire that is expanding its power and influence across the Middle East.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  12. Corvinus says:
    @CalDre

    Once Trump seemed to understand this history.
     
    The Orangutan is an obedient servant to his Masters. Always has been. If he weren't a reliable puppet of the ((global oligarchs)) he would never have been elected (largely as a result of billions of free media attention he garnered from the ((global oligarchs)).

    It is quite obvious the ((global oligarchs)) have some major calamity in mind for the Trump presidency, which will be used to sully what little strands of "nationalism" are left in the political discourse. Perhaps a world war and major economic collapse. Which will be used to usher in the global dictatorship the ((global oligarchs)) have been thirsting after for centuries.

    It's not clear if Trump understands his humiliating role, his ego seems lofty enough that he could easily miss how he is being played, but he plays his role fairly well.

    “Which will be used to usher in the global dictatorship the ((global oligarchs)) have been thirsting after for centuries.”

    Assuming this to be true, what are you personally doing to stop it? Are you willing to organize an outright rebellion against the banksters and Zionists and SAVE “your” nation from destruction, or are you going to just tap away at your keyboard the same tripe without lifting a finger to keep your progeny from becoming a slave just like yourself?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Harold Smith
    The problem is, it's not just a "global dictatorship" but a *Satanic* "global dictatorship." That is to say, it exists only because an overwhelming majority of the people are corrupt/morally incompetent. To put it another way, generally speaking, the scum rose to the top by bringing the majority of the people down.

    Trying to lead a "rebellion" in this sad situation would be like helping the old lady cross the street when she really doesn't want to cross the street, IMO.

    , @CalDre
    I rebel all I can. I have long taken the view that violence will not fix rule by Satan. I am also aware that the vast majority of people are utterly brainwashed, their morals decayed through constant attacks by the Satanic kabal that rules the media, government and other social institutions, that a revolution, launched now, will lead inevitably to an even worse situation.

    So unfortunately there is not much to be done. I spend most of my time trying to raise awareness and consciousness by people I know. But I am putting my finger in a dyke - the mass media has such overwhelming reach and power compared to us lone voices in the wilderness. No dummies, that is precisely why the Synagogue of Satan has spent centuries obtaining virtual monopolies over the mass media.

    I tired of "protests" some time ago - in college, actually, where I attended many. The people "speaking" at these events are inevitably the "controlled opposition" (after all, it costs money and time, so a salary, and it is the elite who can afford to pay the full-time protesters and supply the "bling" they use to gain their leadership roles) and mostly people just chant meaningless slogans, and even these are often manipulated (e.g, the idiotic, nonsensical "Jews will not replace us" chant at the alleged Charlottesville torch march, which actually looked like a staged Hollywood production to me, but whatever).

    What do you suggest? Even getting radical and assassinating scum of the Earth like Brennan, Soros, etc. will accomplish nothing (there is plenty of eager scum to fill their shoes) and, worse, will be counterproductive (it will provide scum with further justification to spy and oppress the people). My view is raising consciousness (spirituality if you will) is the only means to a better world, but without a newspaper, how to do this? I do my best to "publish", but only in comments on various websites; I did try to start my own website but had a hard time gaining traction and simply did not have the huge time commitment. What is more effective for someone who cannot devote full time and endless resources to the job?

    , @SolontoCroesus

    Assuming this to be true, what are you personally doing to stop it?
     
    What are you doing, Corvinus?
    Offering bibles at discount for the duration?

    What do you suggest?

    Tar & feathers?
    Lynchings from lampposts?
    Maybe a well-funded rally featuring pubescent children who insist that only those who kill brown people Over There be permitted to use WMD?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  13. I can readily agree that “war with Iran is a dreadful idea”. But I have few questions:

    PB: “How does Iran threaten us?” How does Syria threaten us?

    What exactly were “the rebels we supported in Syria”? Who were the “we” who supported them? Did they include Pat Buchanan?

    What precisely did this “support” entail (in addition to interference in the affairs of a foreign nation which was not at war with “we”)?

    Was President Assad not entitled to regard these armed rebels as terrorists and instigators of civil war? Was it not his responsibility as head of state to defend Syria against an illegal attempt at regime change, supported as it was by hostile foreign regimes such as those in Britain, France and the US?

    “And Bashar Assad…has secured his throne.” When did the elected president of Syria become a monarch?

    And who is this “antiwar Barack Obama” of whom you speak? Or were you being consciously ironic?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  14. yeah, but if they get into a war with russia or north korea (which means also china), then our american affirmative action military will get whopped bad…the females and minorities in the military cannot be sufficiently disciplined for fear of race/gender bias complaints..and so they are bad…hence the recent navy ship collisions…

    we could not beat china/russia/north korea in the korean war or beat china/russia/vietnam in the vietnam war, and that was back when white men who were disciplined and often experienced hunters comprised most of the military…

    and once russia and or china/north korea defeats our military, then washington dc is gonna get a nuke up its tailpipe, courtesy of russia and or china, thereby ridding the american white working class of our parasitic overlords….and wouldn’t that be a shame?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  15. @Virgile
    Maybe that Trump has assembled all these hawks to oblige them to propose the way to conduct these wars that they have been advocating for years. They will be pressed to come up with something quickly. They may not agree with each other and be overwhelmed by the negative consequence of such wars and they would freak out.
    This is maybe Trump's way to neutralize them and the neocons behind them . "If you cant beat them join them " and destroy them from inside. Then kick them out...
    Maybe I am giving to Trump more intelligence that he has!

    “Maybe I am giving to Trump more intelligence that he has!”

    It doesn’t seem like a very intelligent plan to “neutralize them” by giving them enough rope to hang themselves – and everybody else on this planet – when he could do something like investigate 9/11 for example, does it?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  16. @Corvinus
    "Which will be used to usher in the global dictatorship the ((global oligarchs)) have been thirsting after for centuries."

    Assuming this to be true, what are you personally doing to stop it? Are you willing to organize an outright rebellion against the banksters and Zionists and SAVE "your" nation from destruction, or are you going to just tap away at your keyboard the same tripe without lifting a finger to keep your progeny from becoming a slave just like yourself?

    The problem is, it’s not just a “global dictatorship” but a *Satanic* “global dictatorship.” That is to say, it exists only because an overwhelming majority of the people are corrupt/morally incompetent. To put it another way, generally speaking, the scum rose to the top by bringing the majority of the people down.

    Trying to lead a “rebellion” in this sad situation would be like helping the old lady cross the street when she really doesn’t want to cross the street, IMO.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "The problem is, it’s not just a “global dictatorship” but a *Satanic* “global dictatorship.” That is to say, it exists only because an overwhelming majority of the people are corrupt/morally incompetent. To put it another way, generally speaking, the scum rose to the top by bringing the majority of the people down."

    Interesting opinion.

    "Trying to lead a “rebellion” in this sad situation would be like helping the old lady cross the street when she really doesn’t want to cross the street, IMO."

    So, basically, you are strong enough only to talk about your contempt, but not actually do something about it. Because of fear. Or it's untenable. Or whatever.

    In essence, you are deserving of getting it good and hard because you lack the gumption and guile to stop being repeatedly curb stomped. Is that not what the "Satanic global dictators" want are low-T men who only lament about their situation? I thought hard times make hard men...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  17. What would the Dow Jones average look like after an attack on Iran?

    Pat, this would be the least of the American concerns once first bombs fall on Iran. Per the title:

    Is Trump Assembling a War Cabinet?

    It is wrong–War Cabinet by definition means people who understand war and know how to plan and prosecute it, as you correctly noted the only one in this cabinet who knows about war is Mattis. So, no–Trump is assembling a cabinet of military amateurs who will screw things so badly that… well, let the imagination fly free.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  18. @peterAUS
    A couple of changes.
    1.
    From:

    A war, which would involve U.S. warships against swarms of Iranian torpedo boats could shut down the Persian Gulf to oil traffic and produce a crisis in the global economy.
     
    to:

    A war, which would involve U.S. warships against naval mines and sea-skimmers could shut down the Persian Gulf to oil traffic and produce a crisis in the global economy. That would require a limited invasion and occupation.Re 2.
     
    2.
    From:

    As the Army and Marine Corps do not have the troops to invade and occupy Iran.
     
    To:

    As the Army and Marine Corps do have the troops to invade and occupy parts of Hormu in order to keep it open for the oil traffic. Re 1.
     
    From:

    And if we decided to blockade and bomb Iran, we would have to take out all its anti-ship missiles, submarines, navy, air force, ballistic missiles and air defense system.
     
    to:

    And if we decided to blockade and bomb Iran, we would have to take out most of air force, ballistic missiles and air defense system.
    Then just .......keep ..........bombing....until the regime in Tehran submit to our demands.
     

    You are assuming no one will supply Iran with air defense systems or other military hardware to inflict casualties on the US. That assumption could prove wrong.

    It took three months to convince Serbia to submit to US demands. How long will it take the vastly larger Iranian regime to do so..?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov

    It took three months to convince Serbia to submit to US demands.
     
    Actually, it took Chernomyrdin and completely degenerate Yeltsin (and cabal of Russian "reformers" behind him) to convince Serbia. Russia sold Serbia out, plain and simple.

    How long will it take the vastly larger Iranian regime to do so..?
     
    Unlike Serbia, Iran has S-300s, modernized Kub, Tor-M1 and 2 and Pantsir AD systems, not to mention a huge variety of own knock-offs and indigenous AD systems. Iran also has over-the-horizon radar air-attack early warning system in place. There is a reason why in 2009 Iran singled out Air Defense into separate force (Command) Khatam al-Anbia Air Defense Headquarters (KADHQ). More importantly, Iran has a direct Caspian Sea link to Russia and Azerbaijan and I don't think any US aircraft wants to get to this area with hostile intentions. So, it is a very different situation when compared to isolated and betrayed by main ally Serbia in 1999. In general, it is inconceivable how the US can start a real war in Iran and not run itself into the ground, even if it destroys regular Iranian forces.
    , @peterAUS

    You are assuming no one will supply Iran with air defense systems or other military hardware to inflict casualties on the US. That assumption could prove wrong.
     
    I know somebody will supply Iran with some elements of air defense and other military hardware. It will inflict casualties on the U.S.
    Won't make any difference at the end.

    It took three months to convince Serbia to submit to US demands. How long will it take the vastly larger Iranian regime to do so..?
     
    It took three months of selective, careful air campaign to convince Serbia to submit to US demands.
    In this case the campaign will be considerably more ruthless.
    I say 3 months for a feasible change of the position of the regime in Tehran.Maybe 6.
    Won't make any difference at the end.
    , @Miro23

    You are assuming no one will supply Iran with air defense systems or other military hardware to inflict casualties on the US. That assumption could prove wrong.
     
    At least the Iranians have had plenty of warning. US Zionists and the Israelis have for years been pushing for the United States to destroy Iran (80 million people).

    From the POV of the US public, they have nothing at all to gain - but who's asking them? They'll probably get loaded with a few $ Trillion more debt, oil price inflation and plenty more servicemen's coffins arriving on flights from the Middle East.
    , @Grahamsno(G64)
    Don't bother with that delusional fuckwit Peter, on an earlier thread he thought that the war with Iran would last only 3 months!! What the fuck he hasn't heard of its neighbour Afghanistan where the fighting is going on for a full 17 years!! The only answer for his strangelovian fuckwittery is that he's Jewish and wants Uncle Schmuel to once again fight Israel's wars.
    , @myself
    In 2003, when we decided to topple the Tikriti tribe (Saddam's tribe) from its position atop Iraq, the Iraqis, and the subsequent Iraqi insurgency, had ZERO outside backing. The Iraqis were completely on their own.
    Nonetheless, that war was and IS basically a failure, and took around 5,000 to 6,000 American lives (and countless maimed) from '03 to '11.

    What was that ancient saying that went something like "Tactics without Strategy is the noise and shouting before eventual Defeat".
    Exhibit A: Vietnam, exhibit B: Iraq '03 to '11, exhibit C: Afghanistan 2001 to eternity. And our proxies have lost in Syria.

    It just don't matter how awesome our military is, or how much battle dominance our men have, if we cannot CONVERT our battlefield success into lasting Victory.

    And as we've seen, we can't.

    Given that we are currently antagonizing BOTH Russia and China, who's to say that the Iranian state won't have indefinite supplies of both military and civilian goods to weather a storm of any duration?

    To this layman's mind, that spells U N W I N N A B L E
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  19. CalDre says:
    @Corvinus
    "Which will be used to usher in the global dictatorship the ((global oligarchs)) have been thirsting after for centuries."

    Assuming this to be true, what are you personally doing to stop it? Are you willing to organize an outright rebellion against the banksters and Zionists and SAVE "your" nation from destruction, or are you going to just tap away at your keyboard the same tripe without lifting a finger to keep your progeny from becoming a slave just like yourself?

    I rebel all I can. I have long taken the view that violence will not fix rule by Satan. I am also aware that the vast majority of people are utterly brainwashed, their morals decayed through constant attacks by the Satanic kabal that rules the media, government and other social institutions, that a revolution, launched now, will lead inevitably to an even worse situation.

    So unfortunately there is not much to be done. I spend most of my time trying to raise awareness and consciousness by people I know. But I am putting my finger in a dyke – the mass media has such overwhelming reach and power compared to us lone voices in the wilderness. No dummies, that is precisely why the Synagogue of Satan has spent centuries obtaining virtual monopolies over the mass media.

    I tired of “protests” some time ago – in college, actually, where I attended many. The people “speaking” at these events are inevitably the “controlled opposition” (after all, it costs money and time, so a salary, and it is the elite who can afford to pay the full-time protesters and supply the “bling” they use to gain their leadership roles) and mostly people just chant meaningless slogans, and even these are often manipulated (e.g, the idiotic, nonsensical “Jews will not replace us” chant at the alleged Charlottesville torch march, which actually looked like a staged Hollywood production to me, but whatever).

    What do you suggest? Even getting radical and assassinating scum of the Earth like Brennan, Soros, etc. will accomplish nothing (there is plenty of eager scum to fill their shoes) and, worse, will be counterproductive (it will provide scum with further justification to spy and oppress the people). My view is raising consciousness (spirituality if you will) is the only means to a better world, but without a newspaper, how to do this? I do my best to “publish”, but only in comments on various websites; I did try to start my own website but had a hard time gaining traction and simply did not have the huge time commitment. What is more effective for someone who cannot devote full time and endless resources to the job?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    I rebel all I can. I have long taken the view that violence will not fix rule by Satan.

    "I am also aware that the vast majority of people are utterly brainwashed, their morals decayed through constant attacks by the Satanic kabal that rules the media, government and other social institutions, that a revolution, launched now, will lead inevitably to an even worse situation."

    So what specific evidence do you have that this "vast majority of people are utterly brainwashed"? What makes YOU immune to this tide of propaganda? Could it not be likely that people have made their own decisions using reason and logic, and that you simply oppose their positions? How are you decidedly able to know with absolute certainty that most Americans lack the ability to make up their minds about important matters?

    You have another opportunity here to show how you "thoroughly investigate matters", so do not blow it again.

    "But I am putting my finger in a dyke – the mass media has such overwhelming reach and power compared to us lone voices in the wilderness. No dummies, that is precisely why the Synagogue of Satan has spent centuries obtaining virtual monopolies over the mass media."

    You are making quite the accusation here. Again, you are basically saying tens of millions of Americans have been effectively duped, and they do not even realize it. Yet somehow you and a few of your buddies have escaped their clutches. OK, sport, it's time to actually offer proof that, without question, the majority of men and women in the United States lack agency and the ability to create their own positions. You have much work to do.

    "it is the elite who can afford to pay the full-time protesters and supply the “bling” they use to gain their leadership roles)"

    Specific evidence other than speculation on your part?

    "My view is raising consciousness (spirituality if you will) is the only means to a better world, but without a newspaper, how to do this?...What is more effective for someone who cannot devote full time and endless resources to the job?"

    It's called outright rebellion. If you're liberties have been taken, AND your children will end up being slaves to the globalists, AND there are like minded individuals and groups out there who share your concerns, do you NOT have a duty to resist, lest you be curb stomped?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  20. @reiner Tor
    You are assuming no one will supply Iran with air defense systems or other military hardware to inflict casualties on the US. That assumption could prove wrong.

    It took three months to convince Serbia to submit to US demands. How long will it take the vastly larger Iranian regime to do so..?

    It took three months to convince Serbia to submit to US demands.

    Actually, it took Chernomyrdin and completely degenerate Yeltsin (and cabal of Russian “reformers” behind him) to convince Serbia. Russia sold Serbia out, plain and simple.

    How long will it take the vastly larger Iranian regime to do so..?

    Unlike Serbia, Iran has S-300s, modernized Kub, Tor-M1 and 2 and Pantsir AD systems, not to mention a huge variety of own knock-offs and indigenous AD systems. Iran also has over-the-horizon radar air-attack early warning system in place. There is a reason why in 2009 Iran singled out Air Defense into separate force (Command) Khatam al-Anbia Air Defense Headquarters (KADHQ). More importantly, Iran has a direct Caspian Sea link to Russia and Azerbaijan and I don’t think any US aircraft wants to get to this area with hostile intentions. So, it is a very different situation when compared to isolated and betrayed by main ally Serbia in 1999. In general, it is inconceivable how the US can start a real war in Iran and not run itself into the ground, even if it destroys regular Iranian forces.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    Can't we in the USA stop this reflexive anti-Russian belligerence and get together with Russia to bomb the daylights out of Turkey instead?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  21. peterAUS says:
    @reiner Tor
    You are assuming no one will supply Iran with air defense systems or other military hardware to inflict casualties on the US. That assumption could prove wrong.

    It took three months to convince Serbia to submit to US demands. How long will it take the vastly larger Iranian regime to do so..?

    You are assuming no one will supply Iran with air defense systems or other military hardware to inflict casualties on the US. That assumption could prove wrong.

    I know somebody will supply Iran with some elements of air defense and other military hardware. It will inflict casualties on the U.S.
    Won’t make any difference at the end.

    It took three months to convince Serbia to submit to US demands. How long will it take the vastly larger Iranian regime to do so..?

    It took three months of selective, careful air campaign to convince Serbia to submit to US demands.
    In this case the campaign will be considerably more ruthless.
    I say 3 months for a feasible change of the position of the regime in Tehran.Maybe 6.
    Won’t make any difference at the end.

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    I think that’s wildly optimistic. I hope we won’t see who’s correct, but if it happens, we’ll see anyway.
    , @CalDre

    It took three months of selective, careful air campaign to convince Serbia to submit to US demands.
    In this case the campaign will be considerably more ruthless.

     
    This Iran situation is far trickier. First because Iran is vastly more powerful than Serbia. Second because Iran can strike the tail that wags the dog in innumerable ways. If the US attacks Iran it will be obvious that it is a joint Israel-US attack and Iran will strike Israel.

    Ruthlessness alone will not suffice for victory because ruthlessness will start WW III. You cannot have millions of civilian casualties - and that is what it will take - nowadays with cellphones recording every one of them. The amount of anger will boil over and the US attacking forces will be attacked, by Russia, China, maybe even Turkey, Hezbolla, Syria, maybe even India and Pakistan. Who knows? This is a genie that once out of the bottle can not be contained at will.

    If Russia had not abandoned Serbia, Serbia also would not have fallen.

    If Russia sinks US aircraft carriers that are conducting an unlawful attack against Iran, i.e., Russia acts to preserve international law and protects its ally, what will US do? Start a conventional war against Russia that, should they start to win, under Russian nuclear doctrine, will result in a nuclear exchange?

    Iran is about to join the EEU (scheduled for May 2018) and some years ago (in 2007) was invited to join the Collective Security Treaty Organization (Russia's NATO equivalent, or its modern "Warsaw Pact"). Iran is virtually a neighbor of Russia, more neighborly than Syria (with direct access through the Caspian Sea). If Russia now allows the Evil Empire to conduct another unlawful war against one of its key allies, it may as well go back to being a US vassal state in a unipolar world, as the noose will continue to tighten and tighten and tighten. Russia must draw a line in the sand and protect itself while it still has allies left. It cannot let the Evil Empire pick them off one after another and do nothing. Indeed Russia is at the moment in a particularly strong position, as it has unveiled new weapons systems that nullify US attempts to build a nuclear first strike capability, and the US has not yet had a chance to respond and to try to restore its evil global dominion.

    You are greatly overestimating the strength of the US to continue committing war crimes unimpeded. Appeasement will hit a dead end with an attack on Iran. Iran is not Iraq or Libya, which had no allies and were weak. And unlike Libya, US cannot find enough useful idiot fifth columnists in Iran to destroy their own country to serve the Tribe.

    , @bluedog
    Think your pis*ing in the wind for we have been in Afghanistan what some 17-18 years trying to defeat a few thousand goat herders armed with AK 47's,spent billions of dollars if not a trillion and you think Iran would be a push over,lol that's why they call people like you arm chair generals, for you can't be trusted with any real commands...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  22. The US Military of the Reagan Administration could have defeated Iran with a bit of effort on its part. After the Bush I admin, when social engineering started, however, it’s a different question.

    The current crowd is a mess. With queers, trannies and feminazis running loose in the military, the mission of the military has taken a back seat. Mattis may want a lethal military, but he hasn’t had the political courage to deal with the problems that came crashing down on the military in Obama’s maladministration. I’m afraid if a serious military is the opponent, the military will crumble.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    Oh no, I agree with Quartermaster, get me some smelling salts ;)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  23. Peter Pan says:

    The Jewish Neocon machine has been relentless pushing Trump to WW III in the MIddle East which main purpose will accomplish a Greater Israel Yinon Doctrine. The Middle East will end up a dark hole of civil, religious, tribal wars with millions dead and displace its effects on OIL prices will devastate poor countries and drive costs of industrial output. Even if the USA accomplish a “victory” or stalemate the real winner will be ISRAEL and China. Had Trump refused to sign the omnibus bill or refused to go to war, then the Zionist Neocons running the DOJ will allow MUeller to indict Trump even over flase fake charges…Trump can not win, the dice are loaded…whatever scenario WW III will befought with American blood and Tax Money making the USA fiscally bankrupt pushing the debt to skyrocket, .The traditional Pacifist LEFT has been coopted and castrated by the stablish DEM stranglehold over unions, academia, arts, etc.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Liberty Mike
    Trump could have vetoed the communist spending bill and then fired Mueller. If he had some integrity and some intestinal fortitude. The fly-over dupes were warned that this guy was not their savior, but, hey he wasn't Hillary and he pissed off many in his class, so that was reason enough to vote for the guy who just loves to stiff his creditors and cheat on his wives.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  24. anonymous[645] • Disclaimer says:

    You have to be joking. The Zionist entity is the real problem in the room – the proverbial 800 pound gorilla in the room. The 200+ lb. Orange Orangutan may be a narcissist, and is far from stupid, but has been in bed with Zionists far too long that he refuses to see the situation for what it is. We do not need to cow-tow to every hysterical geschrei and kvetch that Israel makes and demands. What good has making Iraq and Libya into literal S-holes done for us? Bupkes – but at least the Israelis can sleep restfully. This is the BS foreign policy that has to end.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Liberty Mike
    Closer to 275-280.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  25. Sean says:

    Yes, Trump is preparing for war with Iran. Iran thought it needed nukes, because when push comes to shove Iran cannot count on Russia. Putin won’t go up against before the US, he waited until America decided against bombing Assad out of power before sending the Russia expeditionary force to Syria. Iran is not important enough to Russia.

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterAUS

    Yes, Trump is preparing for war with Iran. Iran thought it needed nukes, because when push comes to shove Iran cannot count on Russia. Putin won’t go up against before the US....
     
    and

    Iran is not important enough to Russia.
     
    Agree.
    , @dfordoom

    Iran is not important enough to Russia.
     
    If the U.S. destroys Iran then the lunatics in the U.S. who want war with Russia will be completely out of control. Russia would be very very unwise to allow Iran to be crushed.

    The Russians must realise that eventually they're going to have to stand up to the Americans, otherwise it's all over for them. Better to fight the Americans on Iranian soil than on Russian soil.
    , @Beckow

    Trump is preparing for war with Iran
     
    Everybody is preparing for a war. I don't know if US will bomb Iran, N Korea, or Fiji. But we know that somebody will be bombed. We have had a few 'Franz Ferdinand' moments, the inevitable next steps are coming.

    Iran is not important enough to Russia
     
    One can argue that nothing outside of Russia is 'important enough' to Russia. And yet, when your enemy goes to war with a sizeable opponent, why would you not help that opponent? NATO is basically in a non-shooting war with Russia, there would be huge opportunities for mischief if US attacks Iran. The propaganda value would be priceless - from Malaysia to Oxford, there would be brownie points for standing up to the 'bully'.

    Iran is roughly 3-4 times bigger than either Iraq or Afghanistan; small parts could be occupied and some areas could be controlled with local separatists. But unless either Turkey or Pakistan join in the attack (unlikely), this would be hopeless. Iraq is an ally of Iran, how would that play out? Billions wasted, equipment and lives lost, insurance rates in Persian Gulf skyrocketing, and Russia gleefully sending arms and laughing all the way to the bank with higher energy prices and less competition.

    It is very stupid. So stupid that it just might happen.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  26. Corvinus says:
    @Harold Smith
    The problem is, it's not just a "global dictatorship" but a *Satanic* "global dictatorship." That is to say, it exists only because an overwhelming majority of the people are corrupt/morally incompetent. To put it another way, generally speaking, the scum rose to the top by bringing the majority of the people down.

    Trying to lead a "rebellion" in this sad situation would be like helping the old lady cross the street when she really doesn't want to cross the street, IMO.

    “The problem is, it’s not just a “global dictatorship” but a *Satanic* “global dictatorship.” That is to say, it exists only because an overwhelming majority of the people are corrupt/morally incompetent. To put it another way, generally speaking, the scum rose to the top by bringing the majority of the people down.”

    Interesting opinion.

    “Trying to lead a “rebellion” in this sad situation would be like helping the old lady cross the street when she really doesn’t want to cross the street, IMO.”

    So, basically, you are strong enough only to talk about your contempt, but not actually do something about it. Because of fear. Or it’s untenable. Or whatever.

    In essence, you are deserving of getting it good and hard because you lack the gumption and guile to stop being repeatedly curb stomped. Is that not what the “Satanic global dictators” want are low-T men who only lament about their situation? I thought hard times make hard men…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Harold Smith
    “Interesting opinion.

    So, basically, you are strong enough only to talk about your contempt, but not actually do something about it. Because of fear. Or it’s untenable. Or whatever.”

    Not quite. Apparently you don’t fully understand the nature of the problem. What does “my” “strength” have to do with “your” moral incompetence and “your” spiritual blindness, for example? All I can do is lead “you” to the water; I can’t make “you” drink.

    Anyway (putting aside the issue of the nature of the problem for the moment), in your earlier comment, you asked CalDre: “Are you willing to organize an outright rebellion against the banksters and Zionists and SAVE “your” nation from destruction..[?]”

    From what group of people would you expect to recruit an effective force to “rebel” against the establishment? From the same group of people that not only did nothing to resist the developing tyranny over the last 150 years, but generally actually assisted it?

    Or would you expect me to lead a rebellion of one person, myself, against the establishment? If I don’t become a “suicide bomber” I’m a coward? Is that the gist of it?

    “In essence, you are deserving of getting it good and hard because you lack the gumption and guile to stop being repeatedly curb stomped.”

    Are you referring to me personally or U.S. citizens collectively? In any case, it’s clear that you aren’t very familiar with the Bible and the spiritual axioms therein.

    The instant conflict is a spiritual one, and the people who truly see the evil for what it is, and who refuse to cooperate, accordingly, are very small in number.

    But let’s say for the sake of argument that I get 10 like minded people together and we “revolt” against the “establishment.” What would be our ultimate objective? To somehow restore “liberty and freedom”?

    It’s impossible. But don’t take my word for it. I’ll quote some of the Founders and Framers (of the U.S. constitution):

    “A Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever.”
    ― John Adams, Letters of John Adams, Addressed to His Wife

    “Among a people generally corrupt liberty cannot long exist.”
    Edmund Burke

    “If men be good, government cannot be bad.”
    William Penn

    “No people can be great who have ceased to be virtuous.”
    Samuel Johnson

    “No free government, or the blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any people, but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality and virtue, and by frequent recurrence to fundamental principles.”
    George Mason

    “Without virtue, happiness cannot be.”
    Thomas Jefferson

    “Human rights can only be assured among a virtuous people. The general government . . . can never be in danger of degenerating into a monarchy, an oligarchy, an aristocracy, or any despotic or oppresive form so long as there is any virtue in the body of the people.”
    George Washington

    “Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.”
    Benjamin Franklin

    And on and on ad infinitum…

    Do you see the problem? Liberty and freedom can only exist where a majority of the people are virtuous (morally competent); and I cannot make you a virtuous person by leading a revolt and putting a gun to your head.

    “Is that not what the “Satanic global dictators” want are low-T men who only lament about their situation? I thought hard times make hard men…”

    No, it isn’t. See above. Satanic global dictators want morally incompetent people.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  27. @peterAUS

    You are assuming no one will supply Iran with air defense systems or other military hardware to inflict casualties on the US. That assumption could prove wrong.
     
    I know somebody will supply Iran with some elements of air defense and other military hardware. It will inflict casualties on the U.S.
    Won't make any difference at the end.

    It took three months to convince Serbia to submit to US demands. How long will it take the vastly larger Iranian regime to do so..?
     
    It took three months of selective, careful air campaign to convince Serbia to submit to US demands.
    In this case the campaign will be considerably more ruthless.
    I say 3 months for a feasible change of the position of the regime in Tehran.Maybe 6.
    Won't make any difference at the end.

    I think that’s wildly optimistic. I hope we won’t see who’s correct, but if it happens, we’ll see anyway.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  28. peterAUS says:
    @Sean
    Yes, Trump is preparing for war with Iran. Iran thought it needed nukes, because when push comes to shove Iran cannot count on Russia. Putin won't go up against before the US, he waited until America decided against bombing Assad out of power before sending the Russia expeditionary force to Syria. Iran is not important enough to Russia.

    Yes, Trump is preparing for war with Iran. Iran thought it needed nukes, because when push comes to shove Iran cannot count on Russia. Putin won’t go up against before the US….

    and

    Iran is not important enough to Russia.

    Agree.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  29. Corvinus says:
    @CalDre
    I rebel all I can. I have long taken the view that violence will not fix rule by Satan. I am also aware that the vast majority of people are utterly brainwashed, their morals decayed through constant attacks by the Satanic kabal that rules the media, government and other social institutions, that a revolution, launched now, will lead inevitably to an even worse situation.

    So unfortunately there is not much to be done. I spend most of my time trying to raise awareness and consciousness by people I know. But I am putting my finger in a dyke - the mass media has such overwhelming reach and power compared to us lone voices in the wilderness. No dummies, that is precisely why the Synagogue of Satan has spent centuries obtaining virtual monopolies over the mass media.

    I tired of "protests" some time ago - in college, actually, where I attended many. The people "speaking" at these events are inevitably the "controlled opposition" (after all, it costs money and time, so a salary, and it is the elite who can afford to pay the full-time protesters and supply the "bling" they use to gain their leadership roles) and mostly people just chant meaningless slogans, and even these are often manipulated (e.g, the idiotic, nonsensical "Jews will not replace us" chant at the alleged Charlottesville torch march, which actually looked like a staged Hollywood production to me, but whatever).

    What do you suggest? Even getting radical and assassinating scum of the Earth like Brennan, Soros, etc. will accomplish nothing (there is plenty of eager scum to fill their shoes) and, worse, will be counterproductive (it will provide scum with further justification to spy and oppress the people). My view is raising consciousness (spirituality if you will) is the only means to a better world, but without a newspaper, how to do this? I do my best to "publish", but only in comments on various websites; I did try to start my own website but had a hard time gaining traction and simply did not have the huge time commitment. What is more effective for someone who cannot devote full time and endless resources to the job?

    I rebel all I can. I have long taken the view that violence will not fix rule by Satan.

    “I am also aware that the vast majority of people are utterly brainwashed, their morals decayed through constant attacks by the Satanic kabal that rules the media, government and other social institutions, that a revolution, launched now, will lead inevitably to an even worse situation.”

    So what specific evidence do you have that this “vast majority of people are utterly brainwashed”? What makes YOU immune to this tide of propaganda? Could it not be likely that people have made their own decisions using reason and logic, and that you simply oppose their positions? How are you decidedly able to know with absolute certainty that most Americans lack the ability to make up their minds about important matters?

    You have another opportunity here to show how you “thoroughly investigate matters”, so do not blow it again.

    “But I am putting my finger in a dyke – the mass media has such overwhelming reach and power compared to us lone voices in the wilderness. No dummies, that is precisely why the Synagogue of Satan has spent centuries obtaining virtual monopolies over the mass media.”

    You are making quite the accusation here. Again, you are basically saying tens of millions of Americans have been effectively duped, and they do not even realize it. Yet somehow you and a few of your buddies have escaped their clutches. OK, sport, it’s time to actually offer proof that, without question, the majority of men and women in the United States lack agency and the ability to create their own positions. You have much work to do.

    “it is the elite who can afford to pay the full-time protesters and supply the “bling” they use to gain their leadership roles)”

    Specific evidence other than speculation on your part?

    “My view is raising consciousness (spirituality if you will) is the only means to a better world, but without a newspaper, how to do this?…What is more effective for someone who cannot devote full time and endless resources to the job?”

    It’s called outright rebellion. If you’re liberties have been taken, AND your children will end up being slaves to the globalists, AND there are like minded individuals and groups out there who share your concerns, do you NOT have a duty to resist, lest you be curb stomped?

    Read More
    • Replies: @CalDre

    So what specific evidence do you have that this “vast majority of people are utterly brainwashed”? What makes YOU immune to this tide of propaganda?
     
    Let's see - how about "daily experience"? And I am not immune to propaganda, however, I have witnessed enough events first hand in other countries (and the vast majority of Americans have never visited other countries, I have visited dozens and lived in many), and paid enough attention to the countless times that the West governments have admitted lying, and conducted enough research to catch the mass media in constant lying, manipulation and propaganda (and this in ways that cannot be disputed - for example in referencing an actual document that I can also review, and thereby determine for myself the truth or falseness of the media's claims without relying on the credibility of any witness) that I have a high degree of confidence that I am less subject to it than the vast majority of folks.

    Could it not be likely that people have made their own decisions using reason and logic, and that you simply oppose their positions?
     
    No, in fact, it isn't. Well, in some cases, yes, but vast majority of folks are just blind sheep, like you, that without any reason or basis whatsoever, believe whatever garbage their CNN or Fox serves up to them. There is no "reason" or "logic" to believe a corporation or politician is telling the truth on any particular matter, the only logical conclusion is that this person believes what he is saying or at least wants others to believe this person does, but to conclude this person is telling the truth is just moronic and counter-logical.

    How are you decidedly able to know with absolute certainty that most Americans lack the ability to make up their minds about important matters?
     
    I am not decidedly able to know anything, certainly I don't know that you are a human being. I'm still leaning toward alpha software being developed at NSA.

    You have another opportunity here to show how you “thoroughly investigate matters”, so do not blow it again.
     
    I couldn't prove to you that the sun rose in the East today so why would I try to prove anything at all to you?
    , @CalDre
    You want me to prove how the mass media lies day in and day out? There was one case in which I was very interested, enough so to put together a video proving how diabolically deceptive the BBC is, having to do with a supposed "battle" in Mariupol, as this is a place I have been and I was familiar with the location where the events happened.

    Of course I have, in my own research, found hundreds and hundreds of cases of such deception, but no, I am not putting together further videos to prove it. This one is exemplary and all you get.

    And FWIW, I know BBC had access to the entire clips, but even if they didn't, it doesn't change the fact that (as usual) they portrayed the innocent victims as aggressors and the vile thug murderers (whom they politically supported) as victims - as West media is wont to do over and over and over again.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYzNeVtWyFI

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  30. CalDre says:
    @peterAUS

    You are assuming no one will supply Iran with air defense systems or other military hardware to inflict casualties on the US. That assumption could prove wrong.
     
    I know somebody will supply Iran with some elements of air defense and other military hardware. It will inflict casualties on the U.S.
    Won't make any difference at the end.

    It took three months to convince Serbia to submit to US demands. How long will it take the vastly larger Iranian regime to do so..?
     
    It took three months of selective, careful air campaign to convince Serbia to submit to US demands.
    In this case the campaign will be considerably more ruthless.
    I say 3 months for a feasible change of the position of the regime in Tehran.Maybe 6.
    Won't make any difference at the end.

    It took three months of selective, careful air campaign to convince Serbia to submit to US demands.
    In this case the campaign will be considerably more ruthless.

    This Iran situation is far trickier. First because Iran is vastly more powerful than Serbia. Second because Iran can strike the tail that wags the dog in innumerable ways. If the US attacks Iran it will be obvious that it is a joint Israel-US attack and Iran will strike Israel.

    Ruthlessness alone will not suffice for victory because ruthlessness will start WW III. You cannot have millions of civilian casualties – and that is what it will take – nowadays with cellphones recording every one of them. The amount of anger will boil over and the US attacking forces will be attacked, by Russia, China, maybe even Turkey, Hezbolla, Syria, maybe even India and Pakistan. Who knows? This is a genie that once out of the bottle can not be contained at will.

    If Russia had not abandoned Serbia, Serbia also would not have fallen.

    If Russia sinks US aircraft carriers that are conducting an unlawful attack against Iran, i.e., Russia acts to preserve international law and protects its ally, what will US do? Start a conventional war against Russia that, should they start to win, under Russian nuclear doctrine, will result in a nuclear exchange?

    Iran is about to join the EEU (scheduled for May 2018) and some years ago (in 2007) was invited to join the Collective Security Treaty Organization (Russia’s NATO equivalent, or its modern “Warsaw Pact”). Iran is virtually a neighbor of Russia, more neighborly than Syria (with direct access through the Caspian Sea). If Russia now allows the Evil Empire to conduct another unlawful war against one of its key allies, it may as well go back to being a US vassal state in a unipolar world, as the noose will continue to tighten and tighten and tighten. Russia must draw a line in the sand and protect itself while it still has allies left. It cannot let the Evil Empire pick them off one after another and do nothing. Indeed Russia is at the moment in a particularly strong position, as it has unveiled new weapons systems that nullify US attempts to build a nuclear first strike capability, and the US has not yet had a chance to respond and to try to restore its evil global dominion.

    You are greatly overestimating the strength of the US to continue committing war crimes unimpeded. Appeasement will hit a dead end with an attack on Iran. Iran is not Iraq or Libya, which had no allies and were weak. And unlike Libya, US cannot find enough useful idiot fifth columnists in Iran to destroy their own country to serve the Tribe.

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterAUS

    Ruthlessness alone will not suffice for victory because ruthlessness will start WW III.
     
    Don’t think so.

    You cannot have millions of civilian casualties – and that is what it will take – nowadays with cellphones recording every one of them.
     
    Millions? That’s one.

    The amount of anger will boil over and the US attacking forces will be attacked, by Russia, China, maybe even Turkey, Hezbolla, Syria, maybe even India and Pakistan.
     
    ..US forces will be attacked by Russia, China and…oh my God. That’s two.

    If Russia sinks US aircraft carriers that are conducting an unlawful attack against Iran, i.e., Russia acts to preserve international law and protects its ally, what will US do..
     
    OK. That’s three. I am out.
    , @RadicalCenter
    Good points, sir. And Serbia was not the #7 net oil exporter in the world, as Iran was in 2016 (around two million barrels a day exported). They ain't Saudi Arabia, Russia, or the USA when it comes to oil and gas exports, but they sure aren't insignificant Serbia either.

    Just Iran closing the Straits of Hormuz, and losing or turning off much of its oil exports for a period of a year or more, would have a noticeable adverse effect on the US and world economies (though perhaps not the economies of the local regions of the US that extract a lot of oil or natural gas).
    , @L.K
    Great post, but you have to realize you are talking to a shill...

    This peterAUS imbecile is merely a cowardly keyboard warrior & is on record attacking the idea of a multi-polar world, i.e, this shill is all for ZUS hegemony, although, at times, he tries to disguise it.

    As for the Russian government, the imbecile refers to it as the "regime".

    As for his expertise on the US Military, this "expert" had never even heard of Colonel Douglas Macgregor, or the late Colonel David Hackworth, a soldier's soldier.

    That is because they don't say what he want to hear...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  31. bluedog says:
    @peterAUS
    A couple of changes.
    1.
    From:

    A war, which would involve U.S. warships against swarms of Iranian torpedo boats could shut down the Persian Gulf to oil traffic and produce a crisis in the global economy.
     
    to:

    A war, which would involve U.S. warships against naval mines and sea-skimmers could shut down the Persian Gulf to oil traffic and produce a crisis in the global economy. That would require a limited invasion and occupation.Re 2.
     
    2.
    From:

    As the Army and Marine Corps do not have the troops to invade and occupy Iran.
     
    To:

    As the Army and Marine Corps do have the troops to invade and occupy parts of Hormu in order to keep it open for the oil traffic. Re 1.
     
    From:

    And if we decided to blockade and bomb Iran, we would have to take out all its anti-ship missiles, submarines, navy, air force, ballistic missiles and air defense system.
     
    to:

    And if we decided to blockade and bomb Iran, we would have to take out most of air force, ballistic missiles and air defense system.
    Then just .......keep ..........bombing....until the regime in Tehran submit to our demands.
     

    One thing you can always rely on is a stupid post from Peter the Great>>>

    Read More
    • Replies: @JerseyJeffersonian
    Roger that. Right up there with Quarterwit and Michael Kenny. Can't wait until they weigh in...
    , @NoseytheDuke
    Agh, you didn't finish your comment. Peter the Great what? Ignoramus? Idiot? Fool? Knownothing? Twat? Mutant Ninja Typing Monkey? All of those? Kindly address this oversight for me. Thanks
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  32. Miro23 says:
    @reiner Tor
    You are assuming no one will supply Iran with air defense systems or other military hardware to inflict casualties on the US. That assumption could prove wrong.

    It took three months to convince Serbia to submit to US demands. How long will it take the vastly larger Iranian regime to do so..?

    You are assuming no one will supply Iran with air defense systems or other military hardware to inflict casualties on the US. That assumption could prove wrong.

    At least the Iranians have had plenty of warning. US Zionists and the Israelis have for years been pushing for the United States to destroy Iran (80 million people).

    From the POV of the US public, they have nothing at all to gain – but who’s asking them? They’ll probably get loaded with a few $ Trillion more debt, oil price inflation and plenty more servicemen’s coffins arriving on flights from the Middle East.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  33. @Peter Pan
    The Jewish Neocon machine has been relentless pushing Trump to WW III in the MIddle East which main purpose will accomplish a Greater Israel Yinon Doctrine. The Middle East will end up a dark hole of civil, religious, tribal wars with millions dead and displace its effects on OIL prices will devastate poor countries and drive costs of industrial output. Even if the USA accomplish a "victory" or stalemate the real winner will be ISRAEL and China. Had Trump refused to sign the omnibus bill or refused to go to war, then the Zionist Neocons running the DOJ will allow MUeller to indict Trump even over flase fake charges...Trump can not win, the dice are loaded...whatever scenario WW III will befought with American blood and Tax Money making the USA fiscally bankrupt pushing the debt to skyrocket, .The traditional Pacifist LEFT has been coopted and castrated by the stablish DEM stranglehold over unions, academia, arts, etc.

    Trump could have vetoed the communist spending bill and then fired Mueller. If he had some integrity and some intestinal fortitude. The fly-over dupes were warned that this guy was not their savior, but, hey he wasn’t Hillary and he pissed off many in his class, so that was reason enough to vote for the guy who just loves to stiff his creditors and cheat on his wives.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  34. @anonymous
    You have to be joking. The Zionist entity is the real problem in the room - the proverbial 800 pound gorilla in the room. The 200+ lb. Orange Orangutan may be a narcissist, and is far from stupid, but has been in bed with Zionists far too long that he refuses to see the situation for what it is. We do not need to cow-tow to every hysterical geschrei and kvetch that Israel makes and demands. What good has making Iraq and Libya into literal S-holes done for us? Bupkes - but at least the Israelis can sleep restfully. This is the BS foreign policy that has to end.

    Closer to 275-280.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  35. bluedog says:
    @peterAUS

    You are assuming no one will supply Iran with air defense systems or other military hardware to inflict casualties on the US. That assumption could prove wrong.
     
    I know somebody will supply Iran with some elements of air defense and other military hardware. It will inflict casualties on the U.S.
    Won't make any difference at the end.

    It took three months to convince Serbia to submit to US demands. How long will it take the vastly larger Iranian regime to do so..?
     
    It took three months of selective, careful air campaign to convince Serbia to submit to US demands.
    In this case the campaign will be considerably more ruthless.
    I say 3 months for a feasible change of the position of the regime in Tehran.Maybe 6.
    Won't make any difference at the end.

    Think your pis*ing in the wind for we have been in Afghanistan what some 17-18 years trying to defeat a few thousand goat herders armed with AK 47′s,spent billions of dollars if not a trillion and you think Iran would be a push over,lol that’s why they call people like you arm chair generals, for you can’t be trusted with any real commands…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  36. @Corvinus
    "The problem is, it’s not just a “global dictatorship” but a *Satanic* “global dictatorship.” That is to say, it exists only because an overwhelming majority of the people are corrupt/morally incompetent. To put it another way, generally speaking, the scum rose to the top by bringing the majority of the people down."

    Interesting opinion.

    "Trying to lead a “rebellion” in this sad situation would be like helping the old lady cross the street when she really doesn’t want to cross the street, IMO."

    So, basically, you are strong enough only to talk about your contempt, but not actually do something about it. Because of fear. Or it's untenable. Or whatever.

    In essence, you are deserving of getting it good and hard because you lack the gumption and guile to stop being repeatedly curb stomped. Is that not what the "Satanic global dictators" want are low-T men who only lament about their situation? I thought hard times make hard men...

    “Interesting opinion.

    So, basically, you are strong enough only to talk about your contempt, but not actually do something about it. Because of fear. Or it’s untenable. Or whatever.”

    Not quite. Apparently you don’t fully understand the nature of the problem. What does “my” “strength” have to do with “your” moral incompetence and “your” spiritual blindness, for example? All I can do is lead “you” to the water; I can’t make “you” drink.

    Anyway (putting aside the issue of the nature of the problem for the moment), in your earlier comment, you asked CalDre: “Are you willing to organize an outright rebellion against the banksters and Zionists and SAVE “your” nation from destruction..[?]”

    From what group of people would you expect to recruit an effective force to “rebel” against the establishment? From the same group of people that not only did nothing to resist the developing tyranny over the last 150 years, but generally actually assisted it?

    Or would you expect me to lead a rebellion of one person, myself, against the establishment? If I don’t become a “suicide bomber” I’m a coward? Is that the gist of it?

    “In essence, you are deserving of getting it good and hard because you lack the gumption and guile to stop being repeatedly curb stomped.”

    Are you referring to me personally or U.S. citizens collectively? In any case, it’s clear that you aren’t very familiar with the Bible and the spiritual axioms therein.

    The instant conflict is a spiritual one, and the people who truly see the evil for what it is, and who refuse to cooperate, accordingly, are very small in number.

    But let’s say for the sake of argument that I get 10 like minded people together and we “revolt” against the “establishment.” What would be our ultimate objective? To somehow restore “liberty and freedom”?

    It’s impossible. But don’t take my word for it. I’ll quote some of the Founders and Framers (of the U.S. constitution):

    “A Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever.”
    ― John Adams, Letters of John Adams, Addressed to His Wife

    “Among a people generally corrupt liberty cannot long exist.”
    Edmund Burke

    “If men be good, government cannot be bad.”
    William Penn

    “No people can be great who have ceased to be virtuous.”
    Samuel Johnson

    “No free government, or the blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any people, but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality and virtue, and by frequent recurrence to fundamental principles.”
    George Mason

    “Without virtue, happiness cannot be.”
    Thomas Jefferson

    “Human rights can only be assured among a virtuous people. The general government . . . can never be in danger of degenerating into a monarchy, an oligarchy, an aristocracy, or any despotic or oppresive form so long as there is any virtue in the body of the people.”
    George Washington

    “Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.”
    Benjamin Franklin

    And on and on ad infinitum…

    Do you see the problem? Liberty and freedom can only exist where a majority of the people are virtuous (morally competent); and I cannot make you a virtuous person by leading a revolt and putting a gun to your head.

    “Is that not what the “Satanic global dictators” want are low-T men who only lament about their situation? I thought hard times make hard men…”

    No, it isn’t. See above. Satanic global dictators want morally incompetent people.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "Not quite. Apparently you don’t fully understand the nature of the problem. What does “my” “strength” have to do with “your” moral incompetence and “your” spiritual blindness, for example?"

    So how are you able to know with absolute certainty regarding my apparent "moral incompetence" and "spiritual blindness"? Is it merely due to my challenge of your narrative? Or are you simply flinging something on the wall and hoping it sticks? Please clarify.

    "From what group of people would you expect to recruit an effective force to “rebel” against the establishment?"

    The Alt Right, "true" conservatives, and the deplorables. You have tens of thousands of (white) men ready to head the call.

    "Or would you expect me to lead a rebellion of one person, myself, against the establishment? If I don’t become a “suicide bomber” I’m a coward? Is that the gist of it?"

    No, you are not a coward, but you certainly are part of the same group of people that not only did nothing to resist the developing tyranny over the last 150 years, but generally actually assisted it.

    "The instant conflict is a spiritual one, and the people who truly see the evil for what it is, and who refuse to cooperate, accordingly, are very small in number."

    The conflict is political, spiritual, AND financial in nature.

    "But let’s say for the sake of argument that I get 10 like minded people together and we “revolt” against the “establishment.” What would be our ultimate objective? To somehow restore “liberty and freedom”?"

    You have an army at your disposal. Furthermore, it depends upon what you believe entails "liberty and freedom".

    "It’s impossible. But don’t take my word for it. I’ll quote some of the Founders and Framers (of the U.S. constitution)"

    Great, you cited wise men. But you neglected to take into account the context of their quotations.

    "Do you see the problem? Liberty and freedom can only exist where a majority of the people are virtuous (morally competent)"

    Assuming that you and your ilk are virtuous and the "enemy" is other than virtuous. That is a big leap to make.
    , @G Pinfold
    Great reply Harold, but you may be overthinking it. I think he is just looking for a real man to meet him at a truck stop. He doesn’t really want to start a ‘rebellion’.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  37. CalDre says:
    @Corvinus
    I rebel all I can. I have long taken the view that violence will not fix rule by Satan.

    "I am also aware that the vast majority of people are utterly brainwashed, their morals decayed through constant attacks by the Satanic kabal that rules the media, government and other social institutions, that a revolution, launched now, will lead inevitably to an even worse situation."

    So what specific evidence do you have that this "vast majority of people are utterly brainwashed"? What makes YOU immune to this tide of propaganda? Could it not be likely that people have made their own decisions using reason and logic, and that you simply oppose their positions? How are you decidedly able to know with absolute certainty that most Americans lack the ability to make up their minds about important matters?

    You have another opportunity here to show how you "thoroughly investigate matters", so do not blow it again.

    "But I am putting my finger in a dyke – the mass media has such overwhelming reach and power compared to us lone voices in the wilderness. No dummies, that is precisely why the Synagogue of Satan has spent centuries obtaining virtual monopolies over the mass media."

    You are making quite the accusation here. Again, you are basically saying tens of millions of Americans have been effectively duped, and they do not even realize it. Yet somehow you and a few of your buddies have escaped their clutches. OK, sport, it's time to actually offer proof that, without question, the majority of men and women in the United States lack agency and the ability to create their own positions. You have much work to do.

    "it is the elite who can afford to pay the full-time protesters and supply the “bling” they use to gain their leadership roles)"

    Specific evidence other than speculation on your part?

    "My view is raising consciousness (spirituality if you will) is the only means to a better world, but without a newspaper, how to do this?...What is more effective for someone who cannot devote full time and endless resources to the job?"

    It's called outright rebellion. If you're liberties have been taken, AND your children will end up being slaves to the globalists, AND there are like minded individuals and groups out there who share your concerns, do you NOT have a duty to resist, lest you be curb stomped?

    So what specific evidence do you have that this “vast majority of people are utterly brainwashed”? What makes YOU immune to this tide of propaganda?

    Let’s see – how about “daily experience”? And I am not immune to propaganda, however, I have witnessed enough events first hand in other countries (and the vast majority of Americans have never visited other countries, I have visited dozens and lived in many), and paid enough attention to the countless times that the West governments have admitted lying, and conducted enough research to catch the mass media in constant lying, manipulation and propaganda (and this in ways that cannot be disputed – for example in referencing an actual document that I can also review, and thereby determine for myself the truth or falseness of the media’s claims without relying on the credibility of any witness) that I have a high degree of confidence that I am less subject to it than the vast majority of folks.

    Could it not be likely that people have made their own decisions using reason and logic, and that you simply oppose their positions?

    No, in fact, it isn’t. Well, in some cases, yes, but vast majority of folks are just blind sheep, like you, that without any reason or basis whatsoever, believe whatever garbage their CNN or Fox serves up to them. There is no “reason” or “logic” to believe a corporation or politician is telling the truth on any particular matter, the only logical conclusion is that this person believes what he is saying or at least wants others to believe this person does, but to conclude this person is telling the truth is just moronic and counter-logical.

    How are you decidedly able to know with absolute certainty that most Americans lack the ability to make up their minds about important matters?

    I am not decidedly able to know anything, certainly I don’t know that you are a human being. I’m still leaning toward alpha software being developed at NSA.

    You have another opportunity here to show how you “thoroughly investigate matters”, so do not blow it again.

    I couldn’t prove to you that the sun rose in the East today so why would I try to prove anything at all to you?

    Read More
    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    Agree with much of your comment.

    Just wanted to quibble with the suggestion that the vast majority of Americans haven't been to another country.

    That might be true if we exclude our neighbors, Canada and Mexico, as a great proportion of our travel understandably is "next door." But if don't exclude our neighbors, it may even be that a bare majority of Americans have travelled to another country. Look at these fed gov stats on the massively increased issuance of US passports in the past 20 years, from five and a half million in Fiscal Year 1996 to TWENTY-ONE AND A HALF MILLION in Fiscal Year 2017. A large swathe of the non-rich in this country have passports and use them from time to time.

    https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/passports/after/passport-statistics.html
    , @Corvinus
    "Let's see - how about "daily experience"?"

    Which is prone to confirmation and recency bias.

    "I have witnessed enough events first hand in other countries (and the vast majority of Americans have never visited other countries, I have visited dozens and lived in many), and paid enough attention to the countless times that the West governments have admitted lying..."

    Just because there are instances where governments and the media lie does not mean that they are not to be entirely trusted. Each event is judged on its own merits, or lack thereof.

    "and conducted enough research to catch the mass media in constant lying, manipulation and propaganda (and this in ways that cannot be disputed - for example in referencing an actual document that I can also review, and thereby determine for myself the truth or falseness of the media's claims without relying on the credibility of any witness)..."

    Once again, what is this "research"? You keep saying it, but don't actually offer anything of substantive value.

    "That I have a high degree of confidence that I am less subject to it than the vast majority of folks."

    And that would be shilling on your part. What makes you think that you, compared to others, are decidedly less prone to being duped?

    "No, in fact, it isn't. Well, in some cases, yes, but vast majority of folks are just blind sheep, like you, that without any reason or basis whatsoever, believe whatever garbage their CNN or Fox serves up to them."

    You wildly assume that 1) the vast majority of folks are blind, that 2) I fall into that category, and 3) I believe anything the media says. Over the top generalizations does not equal evidence. All you have hear is speculation. Remember, not all opinions are equal in weight.

    "There is no "reason" or "logic" to believe a corporation or politician is telling the truth on any particular matter, the only logical conclusion is that this person believes what he is saying or at least wants others to believe this person does, but to conclude this person is telling the truth is just moronic and counter-logical."

    And this is EXACTLY your problem here--you automatically believe that companies and leaders are other than capable of expressing truth. Somehow, however, you undeniably know their intentions and motives and therefore discount their arguments. You are being illogical and unreasonable here.

    "Of course I have, in my own research, found hundreds and hundreds of cases of such deception, but no, I am not putting together further videos to prove it. This one is exemplary and all you get."

    One example does not mean that in every and all situations and circumstances the government and media perpetually lie. You are being obtuse.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  38. peterAUS says:
    @CalDre

    It took three months of selective, careful air campaign to convince Serbia to submit to US demands.
    In this case the campaign will be considerably more ruthless.

     
    This Iran situation is far trickier. First because Iran is vastly more powerful than Serbia. Second because Iran can strike the tail that wags the dog in innumerable ways. If the US attacks Iran it will be obvious that it is a joint Israel-US attack and Iran will strike Israel.

    Ruthlessness alone will not suffice for victory because ruthlessness will start WW III. You cannot have millions of civilian casualties - and that is what it will take - nowadays with cellphones recording every one of them. The amount of anger will boil over and the US attacking forces will be attacked, by Russia, China, maybe even Turkey, Hezbolla, Syria, maybe even India and Pakistan. Who knows? This is a genie that once out of the bottle can not be contained at will.

    If Russia had not abandoned Serbia, Serbia also would not have fallen.

    If Russia sinks US aircraft carriers that are conducting an unlawful attack against Iran, i.e., Russia acts to preserve international law and protects its ally, what will US do? Start a conventional war against Russia that, should they start to win, under Russian nuclear doctrine, will result in a nuclear exchange?

    Iran is about to join the EEU (scheduled for May 2018) and some years ago (in 2007) was invited to join the Collective Security Treaty Organization (Russia's NATO equivalent, or its modern "Warsaw Pact"). Iran is virtually a neighbor of Russia, more neighborly than Syria (with direct access through the Caspian Sea). If Russia now allows the Evil Empire to conduct another unlawful war against one of its key allies, it may as well go back to being a US vassal state in a unipolar world, as the noose will continue to tighten and tighten and tighten. Russia must draw a line in the sand and protect itself while it still has allies left. It cannot let the Evil Empire pick them off one after another and do nothing. Indeed Russia is at the moment in a particularly strong position, as it has unveiled new weapons systems that nullify US attempts to build a nuclear first strike capability, and the US has not yet had a chance to respond and to try to restore its evil global dominion.

    You are greatly overestimating the strength of the US to continue committing war crimes unimpeded. Appeasement will hit a dead end with an attack on Iran. Iran is not Iraq or Libya, which had no allies and were weak. And unlike Libya, US cannot find enough useful idiot fifth columnists in Iran to destroy their own country to serve the Tribe.

    Ruthlessness alone will not suffice for victory because ruthlessness will start WW III.

    Don’t think so.

    You cannot have millions of civilian casualties – and that is what it will take – nowadays with cellphones recording every one of them.

    Millions? That’s one.

    The amount of anger will boil over and the US attacking forces will be attacked, by Russia, China, maybe even Turkey, Hezbolla, Syria, maybe even India and Pakistan.

    ..US forces will be attacked by Russia, China and…oh my God. That’s two.

    If Russia sinks US aircraft carriers that are conducting an unlawful attack against Iran, i.e., Russia acts to preserve international law and protects its ally, what will US do..

    OK. That’s three. I am out.

    Read More
    • Troll: L.K
    • Replies: @fredyetagain aka superhonky
    "I am out."

    Glad to hear it. While you're out, why don't you grab yourself more of what you've been smoking? Being one of the biggest laptop bombardiers on this site (no small feat!) must be very tiring for you, and so you've certainly earned the R&R.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  39. CalDre says:
    @Corvinus
    I rebel all I can. I have long taken the view that violence will not fix rule by Satan.

    "I am also aware that the vast majority of people are utterly brainwashed, their morals decayed through constant attacks by the Satanic kabal that rules the media, government and other social institutions, that a revolution, launched now, will lead inevitably to an even worse situation."

    So what specific evidence do you have that this "vast majority of people are utterly brainwashed"? What makes YOU immune to this tide of propaganda? Could it not be likely that people have made their own decisions using reason and logic, and that you simply oppose their positions? How are you decidedly able to know with absolute certainty that most Americans lack the ability to make up their minds about important matters?

    You have another opportunity here to show how you "thoroughly investigate matters", so do not blow it again.

    "But I am putting my finger in a dyke – the mass media has such overwhelming reach and power compared to us lone voices in the wilderness. No dummies, that is precisely why the Synagogue of Satan has spent centuries obtaining virtual monopolies over the mass media."

    You are making quite the accusation here. Again, you are basically saying tens of millions of Americans have been effectively duped, and they do not even realize it. Yet somehow you and a few of your buddies have escaped their clutches. OK, sport, it's time to actually offer proof that, without question, the majority of men and women in the United States lack agency and the ability to create their own positions. You have much work to do.

    "it is the elite who can afford to pay the full-time protesters and supply the “bling” they use to gain their leadership roles)"

    Specific evidence other than speculation on your part?

    "My view is raising consciousness (spirituality if you will) is the only means to a better world, but without a newspaper, how to do this?...What is more effective for someone who cannot devote full time and endless resources to the job?"

    It's called outright rebellion. If you're liberties have been taken, AND your children will end up being slaves to the globalists, AND there are like minded individuals and groups out there who share your concerns, do you NOT have a duty to resist, lest you be curb stomped?

    You want me to prove how the mass media lies day in and day out? There was one case in which I was very interested, enough so to put together a video proving how diabolically deceptive the BBC is, having to do with a supposed “battle” in Mariupol, as this is a place I have been and I was familiar with the location where the events happened.

    Of course I have, in my own research, found hundreds and hundreds of cases of such deception, but no, I am not putting together further videos to prove it. This one is exemplary and all you get.

    And FWIW, I know BBC had access to the entire clips, but even if they didn’t, it doesn’t change the fact that (as usual) they portrayed the innocent victims as aggressors and the vile thug murderers (whom they politically supported) as victims – as West media is wont to do over and over and over again.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  40. @bluedog
    One thing you can always rely on is a stupid post from Peter the Great>>>

    Roger that. Right up there with Quarterwit and Michael Kenny. Can’t wait until they weigh in…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  41. @Andrei Martyanov

    It took three months to convince Serbia to submit to US demands.
     
    Actually, it took Chernomyrdin and completely degenerate Yeltsin (and cabal of Russian "reformers" behind him) to convince Serbia. Russia sold Serbia out, plain and simple.

    How long will it take the vastly larger Iranian regime to do so..?
     
    Unlike Serbia, Iran has S-300s, modernized Kub, Tor-M1 and 2 and Pantsir AD systems, not to mention a huge variety of own knock-offs and indigenous AD systems. Iran also has over-the-horizon radar air-attack early warning system in place. There is a reason why in 2009 Iran singled out Air Defense into separate force (Command) Khatam al-Anbia Air Defense Headquarters (KADHQ). More importantly, Iran has a direct Caspian Sea link to Russia and Azerbaijan and I don't think any US aircraft wants to get to this area with hostile intentions. So, it is a very different situation when compared to isolated and betrayed by main ally Serbia in 1999. In general, it is inconceivable how the US can start a real war in Iran and not run itself into the ground, even if it destroys regular Iranian forces.

    Can’t we in the USA stop this reflexive anti-Russian belligerence and get together with Russia to bomb the daylights out of Turkey instead?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  42. @whyamihere
    Iran will likely try to attack Israel from its bases in Syria and that could set the stage for a two front war for Israel against Lebanon in the North and Iran in the Northeast near the Golan Heights.

    America must come to her friend Israel's aid should this happen. Trump will do the right thing and help out Israel.

    Tear up that deal! Long live Israel!

    Why don’t you fight your own wars for a change? But then, that would violate centuries of precedents of duping others into doing it for you, and all while your exploit the situation to profit from the conflict. So I guess it’ll be SOP, eh?

    Oh, by the way, death to Israel.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  43. @Quartermaster
    The US Military of the Reagan Administration could have defeated Iran with a bit of effort on its part. After the Bush I admin, when social engineering started, however, it's a different question.

    The current crowd is a mess. With queers, trannies and feminazis running loose in the military, the mission of the military has taken a back seat. Mattis may want a lethal military, but he hasn't had the political courage to deal with the problems that came crashing down on the military in Obama's maladministration. I'm afraid if a serious military is the opponent, the military will crumble.

    Oh no, I agree with Quartermaster, get me some smelling salts ;)

    Read More
    • Replies: @NoseytheDuke
    But why? What has Iran done to the US to deserve this hatred? I can understand why Iranians might hate Britain and the US for what they did to destroy Iran's nascent democracy, yet they appear to have moved on and have done nothing against us.

    The very idea that the US, UK and Israel can strike out at the nations they dislike as they please, will be their eventual undoing.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  44. @CalDre

    It took three months of selective, careful air campaign to convince Serbia to submit to US demands.
    In this case the campaign will be considerably more ruthless.

     
    This Iran situation is far trickier. First because Iran is vastly more powerful than Serbia. Second because Iran can strike the tail that wags the dog in innumerable ways. If the US attacks Iran it will be obvious that it is a joint Israel-US attack and Iran will strike Israel.

    Ruthlessness alone will not suffice for victory because ruthlessness will start WW III. You cannot have millions of civilian casualties - and that is what it will take - nowadays with cellphones recording every one of them. The amount of anger will boil over and the US attacking forces will be attacked, by Russia, China, maybe even Turkey, Hezbolla, Syria, maybe even India and Pakistan. Who knows? This is a genie that once out of the bottle can not be contained at will.

    If Russia had not abandoned Serbia, Serbia also would not have fallen.

    If Russia sinks US aircraft carriers that are conducting an unlawful attack against Iran, i.e., Russia acts to preserve international law and protects its ally, what will US do? Start a conventional war against Russia that, should they start to win, under Russian nuclear doctrine, will result in a nuclear exchange?

    Iran is about to join the EEU (scheduled for May 2018) and some years ago (in 2007) was invited to join the Collective Security Treaty Organization (Russia's NATO equivalent, or its modern "Warsaw Pact"). Iran is virtually a neighbor of Russia, more neighborly than Syria (with direct access through the Caspian Sea). If Russia now allows the Evil Empire to conduct another unlawful war against one of its key allies, it may as well go back to being a US vassal state in a unipolar world, as the noose will continue to tighten and tighten and tighten. Russia must draw a line in the sand and protect itself while it still has allies left. It cannot let the Evil Empire pick them off one after another and do nothing. Indeed Russia is at the moment in a particularly strong position, as it has unveiled new weapons systems that nullify US attempts to build a nuclear first strike capability, and the US has not yet had a chance to respond and to try to restore its evil global dominion.

    You are greatly overestimating the strength of the US to continue committing war crimes unimpeded. Appeasement will hit a dead end with an attack on Iran. Iran is not Iraq or Libya, which had no allies and were weak. And unlike Libya, US cannot find enough useful idiot fifth columnists in Iran to destroy their own country to serve the Tribe.

    Good points, sir. And Serbia was not the #7 net oil exporter in the world, as Iran was in 2016 (around two million barrels a day exported). They ain’t Saudi Arabia, Russia, or the USA when it comes to oil and gas exports, but they sure aren’t insignificant Serbia either.

    Just Iran closing the Straits of Hormuz, and losing or turning off much of its oil exports for a period of a year or more, would have a noticeable adverse effect on the US and world economies (though perhaps not the economies of the local regions of the US that extract a lot of oil or natural gas).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  45. @CalDre

    So what specific evidence do you have that this “vast majority of people are utterly brainwashed”? What makes YOU immune to this tide of propaganda?
     
    Let's see - how about "daily experience"? And I am not immune to propaganda, however, I have witnessed enough events first hand in other countries (and the vast majority of Americans have never visited other countries, I have visited dozens and lived in many), and paid enough attention to the countless times that the West governments have admitted lying, and conducted enough research to catch the mass media in constant lying, manipulation and propaganda (and this in ways that cannot be disputed - for example in referencing an actual document that I can also review, and thereby determine for myself the truth or falseness of the media's claims without relying on the credibility of any witness) that I have a high degree of confidence that I am less subject to it than the vast majority of folks.

    Could it not be likely that people have made their own decisions using reason and logic, and that you simply oppose their positions?
     
    No, in fact, it isn't. Well, in some cases, yes, but vast majority of folks are just blind sheep, like you, that without any reason or basis whatsoever, believe whatever garbage their CNN or Fox serves up to them. There is no "reason" or "logic" to believe a corporation or politician is telling the truth on any particular matter, the only logical conclusion is that this person believes what he is saying or at least wants others to believe this person does, but to conclude this person is telling the truth is just moronic and counter-logical.

    How are you decidedly able to know with absolute certainty that most Americans lack the ability to make up their minds about important matters?
     
    I am not decidedly able to know anything, certainly I don't know that you are a human being. I'm still leaning toward alpha software being developed at NSA.

    You have another opportunity here to show how you “thoroughly investigate matters”, so do not blow it again.
     
    I couldn't prove to you that the sun rose in the East today so why would I try to prove anything at all to you?

    Agree with much of your comment.

    Just wanted to quibble with the suggestion that the vast majority of Americans haven’t been to another country.

    That might be true if we exclude our neighbors, Canada and Mexico, as a great proportion of our travel understandably is “next door.” But if don’t exclude our neighbors, it may even be that a bare majority of Americans have travelled to another country. Look at these fed gov stats on the massively increased issuance of US passports in the past 20 years, from five and a half million in Fiscal Year 1996 to TWENTY-ONE AND A HALF MILLION in Fiscal Year 2017. A large swathe of the non-rich in this country have passports and use them from time to time.

    https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/passports/after/passport-statistics.html

    Read More
    • Replies: @CalDre
    Thanks, I should have been clearer, by "visited" I meant more than just see some buildings. In my experience many Americans travel the world by "tour group" or family/friends and, aside from casual small talk or tourist "business" (restaurant/bar orders, souvenirs, etc.), don't communicate with the locals - don't learn the culture, don't learn the history, don't learn the attitudes. The ones who truly "visit" are the "year abroad" students, those who work abroad (but not, e.g., in the military or other ghettos / compounds).

    Interestingly, in 1989 there were only about 7 M passports outstanding, today there are 135 M (Source - under heading "Valid Passports in Circulation (1989-2017) "). This is largely explained by the growing Latino population, who have not assimilated but now need a passport to travel "home". And Mexican-Americans, who are a substantial sub-population, would know if the US media were constantly lying about Mexico, but since Mexico (and Canada) are both reliable vassals (of the Empire, not the sitting Orangutan), the US media doesn't bother.

    What I have done is lived, or visited for substantial periods of time, in countries the US was busy demonizing. And whenever I visit a country, I go out of my way to meet and speak with (and where possible, date and/or befriend) locals.

    Polls do show that 40% of Americans have never left the country.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  46. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Sean
    Yes, Trump is preparing for war with Iran. Iran thought it needed nukes, because when push comes to shove Iran cannot count on Russia. Putin won't go up against before the US, he waited until America decided against bombing Assad out of power before sending the Russia expeditionary force to Syria. Iran is not important enough to Russia.

    Iran is not important enough to Russia.

    If the U.S. destroys Iran then the lunatics in the U.S. who want war with Russia will be completely out of control. Russia would be very very unwise to allow Iran to be crushed.

    The Russians must realise that eventually they’re going to have to stand up to the Americans, otherwise it’s all over for them. Better to fight the Americans on Iranian soil than on Russian soil.

    Read More
    • Agree: reiner Tor
    • Replies: @Sean
    Yes, because it is not like Russia has space to retreat into.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  47. L.K says:
    @CalDre

    It took three months of selective, careful air campaign to convince Serbia to submit to US demands.
    In this case the campaign will be considerably more ruthless.

     
    This Iran situation is far trickier. First because Iran is vastly more powerful than Serbia. Second because Iran can strike the tail that wags the dog in innumerable ways. If the US attacks Iran it will be obvious that it is a joint Israel-US attack and Iran will strike Israel.

    Ruthlessness alone will not suffice for victory because ruthlessness will start WW III. You cannot have millions of civilian casualties - and that is what it will take - nowadays with cellphones recording every one of them. The amount of anger will boil over and the US attacking forces will be attacked, by Russia, China, maybe even Turkey, Hezbolla, Syria, maybe even India and Pakistan. Who knows? This is a genie that once out of the bottle can not be contained at will.

    If Russia had not abandoned Serbia, Serbia also would not have fallen.

    If Russia sinks US aircraft carriers that are conducting an unlawful attack against Iran, i.e., Russia acts to preserve international law and protects its ally, what will US do? Start a conventional war against Russia that, should they start to win, under Russian nuclear doctrine, will result in a nuclear exchange?

    Iran is about to join the EEU (scheduled for May 2018) and some years ago (in 2007) was invited to join the Collective Security Treaty Organization (Russia's NATO equivalent, or its modern "Warsaw Pact"). Iran is virtually a neighbor of Russia, more neighborly than Syria (with direct access through the Caspian Sea). If Russia now allows the Evil Empire to conduct another unlawful war against one of its key allies, it may as well go back to being a US vassal state in a unipolar world, as the noose will continue to tighten and tighten and tighten. Russia must draw a line in the sand and protect itself while it still has allies left. It cannot let the Evil Empire pick them off one after another and do nothing. Indeed Russia is at the moment in a particularly strong position, as it has unveiled new weapons systems that nullify US attempts to build a nuclear first strike capability, and the US has not yet had a chance to respond and to try to restore its evil global dominion.

    You are greatly overestimating the strength of the US to continue committing war crimes unimpeded. Appeasement will hit a dead end with an attack on Iran. Iran is not Iraq or Libya, which had no allies and were weak. And unlike Libya, US cannot find enough useful idiot fifth columnists in Iran to destroy their own country to serve the Tribe.

    Great post, but you have to realize you are talking to a shill…

    This peterAUS imbecile is merely a cowardly keyboard warrior & is on record attacking the idea of a multi-polar world, i.e, this shill is all for ZUS hegemony, although, at times, he tries to disguise it.

    As for the Russian government, the imbecile refers to it as the “regime”.

    As for his expertise on the US Military, this “expert” had never even heard of Colonel Douglas Macgregor, or the late Colonel David Hackworth, a soldier’s soldier.

    That is because they don’t say what he want to hear…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  48. Rurik says:

    Is Trump Assembling a War Cabinet?

    His new national security adviser John Bolton,

    you answered your own question Pat

    what Trump and Bolton and co, must begin to understand, is that the mullahs and Putin are not going to be their only adversaries if Trump marches us to war.

    No.

    Rather, Trump is going to have a very significant swath of the US electorate as his new and well-earned enemies as well. Perhaps we won’t be fighting in the Persian Gulf, but we’ll be fighting his reinvigorated Eternal Wars from the halls of Ivy Towers to the rust belts of the heart land, from where Trump rallied his now recalcitrant former supporters.

    These voices will be more resolute in the condemnation and damnation of Trump and his neocons than they’ve ever been before, feeling as they must, the bitter lash of betrayal, for all that Trump promised, and for all the aspirations that he’s now dashing on the rocks of treason.

    Betrayal is worse, and it stings more than just garden variety evil and crime. So I would expect that the people who supported and voted for Trump- because he said he’d end the catastrophic Eternal Wars, but instead decides to escalate them, will hate Trump with the fury and intensity of a thousand exploding suns, to the n’th power.

    His base will become his singular nemesis, and they’ll demand his impeachment with more fervor than ten million Maxine Waters and Chucky Schumers combined.

    It won’t just be the Europeans and Asians and Arabs and Persians that will fight Trump to the last tooth and nail, it will be all honorable and decent Americans as well, who Trump will have betrayed in order to cozy to The Fiend, and secure the sanction of the fake news media, that will continue to hate his guts, even as it hails his greatness as a war president.

    the folly, the folly, the terrible, terrible folly

    Read More
    • Agree: bluedog
    • Replies: @Diversity Heretic
    Interesting comment. I supported (financially) Trump before Iowa and yes, I feel completely betrayed. But my personal reaction is less one of fervent animosity than one of utter indifference to Donald Trump. Let the Dems impeach him and remove him from office, I don't care. At the present time, I'm inclined to vote for whatever lesbian communist person of color the Dems nominate just to at least know what I'm getting. But others may feel differently about Trump's action.

    And yes, it is terrible folly.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  49. It appears once again big money is the problem.. damn prostitutes is all they are. Something really really needs to be done about the financing and corruption before it kills us all. I honestly think they would have a MUCH better chance of winning if they turned down the goons money and ran on America First! But what do I know, I’m just a dumb low IQ gentile…

    Trump appointed Bolton because Republicans desperately need Adelson’s money

    http://mondoweiss.net/2018/03/appointed-republicans-desperately/

    The simple truth about John Bolton’s appointment to national security adviser is that the Republicans need Sheldon Adelson’s money in order to be competitive in the coming midterms, and John Bolton is a tool of Sheldon Adelson.

    Sad! I think the Republicans are doomed if this keeps up, how stupid can they possibly be? People are not gonna show up to vote for Israel firsters.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  50. CalDre says:
    @RadicalCenter
    Agree with much of your comment.

    Just wanted to quibble with the suggestion that the vast majority of Americans haven't been to another country.

    That might be true if we exclude our neighbors, Canada and Mexico, as a great proportion of our travel understandably is "next door." But if don't exclude our neighbors, it may even be that a bare majority of Americans have travelled to another country. Look at these fed gov stats on the massively increased issuance of US passports in the past 20 years, from five and a half million in Fiscal Year 1996 to TWENTY-ONE AND A HALF MILLION in Fiscal Year 2017. A large swathe of the non-rich in this country have passports and use them from time to time.

    https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/passports/after/passport-statistics.html

    Thanks, I should have been clearer, by “visited” I meant more than just see some buildings. In my experience many Americans travel the world by “tour group” or family/friends and, aside from casual small talk or tourist “business” (restaurant/bar orders, souvenirs, etc.), don’t communicate with the locals – don’t learn the culture, don’t learn the history, don’t learn the attitudes. The ones who truly “visit” are the “year abroad” students, those who work abroad (but not, e.g., in the military or other ghettos / compounds).

    Interestingly, in 1989 there were only about 7 M passports outstanding, today there are 135 M (Source – under heading “Valid Passports in Circulation (1989-2017) “). This is largely explained by the growing Latino population, who have not assimilated but now need a passport to travel “home”. And Mexican-Americans, who are a substantial sub-population, would know if the US media were constantly lying about Mexico, but since Mexico (and Canada) are both reliable vassals (of the Empire, not the sitting Orangutan), the US media doesn’t bother.

    What I have done is lived, or visited for substantial periods of time, in countries the US was busy demonizing. And whenever I visit a country, I go out of my way to meet and speak with (and where possible, date and/or befriend) locals.

    Polls do show that 40% of Americans have never left the country.

    Read More
    • Agree: L.K, RadicalCenter
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  51. @bluedog
    One thing you can always rely on is a stupid post from Peter the Great>>>

    Agh, you didn’t finish your comment. Peter the Great what? Ignoramus? Idiot? Fool? Knownothing? Twat? Mutant Ninja Typing Monkey? All of those? Kindly address this oversight for me. Thanks

    Read More
    • Replies: @bluedog
    Lol all of the above.....
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  52. @RadicalCenter
    Oh no, I agree with Quartermaster, get me some smelling salts ;)

    But why? What has Iran done to the US to deserve this hatred? I can understand why Iranians might hate Britain and the US for what they did to destroy Iran’s nascent democracy, yet they appear to have moved on and have done nothing against us.

    The very idea that the US, UK and Israel can strike out at the nations they dislike as they please, will be their eventual undoing.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  53. Corvinus says:
    @Harold Smith
    “Interesting opinion.

    So, basically, you are strong enough only to talk about your contempt, but not actually do something about it. Because of fear. Or it’s untenable. Or whatever.”

    Not quite. Apparently you don’t fully understand the nature of the problem. What does “my” “strength” have to do with “your” moral incompetence and “your” spiritual blindness, for example? All I can do is lead “you” to the water; I can’t make “you” drink.

    Anyway (putting aside the issue of the nature of the problem for the moment), in your earlier comment, you asked CalDre: “Are you willing to organize an outright rebellion against the banksters and Zionists and SAVE “your” nation from destruction..[?]”

    From what group of people would you expect to recruit an effective force to “rebel” against the establishment? From the same group of people that not only did nothing to resist the developing tyranny over the last 150 years, but generally actually assisted it?

    Or would you expect me to lead a rebellion of one person, myself, against the establishment? If I don’t become a “suicide bomber” I’m a coward? Is that the gist of it?

    “In essence, you are deserving of getting it good and hard because you lack the gumption and guile to stop being repeatedly curb stomped.”

    Are you referring to me personally or U.S. citizens collectively? In any case, it’s clear that you aren’t very familiar with the Bible and the spiritual axioms therein.

    The instant conflict is a spiritual one, and the people who truly see the evil for what it is, and who refuse to cooperate, accordingly, are very small in number.

    But let’s say for the sake of argument that I get 10 like minded people together and we “revolt” against the “establishment.” What would be our ultimate objective? To somehow restore “liberty and freedom”?

    It’s impossible. But don’t take my word for it. I’ll quote some of the Founders and Framers (of the U.S. constitution):

    “A Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever.”
    ― John Adams, Letters of John Adams, Addressed to His Wife

    “Among a people generally corrupt liberty cannot long exist.”
    Edmund Burke

    “If men be good, government cannot be bad.”
    William Penn

    “No people can be great who have ceased to be virtuous.”
    Samuel Johnson

    “No free government, or the blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any people, but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality and virtue, and by frequent recurrence to fundamental principles.”
    George Mason

    “Without virtue, happiness cannot be.”
    Thomas Jefferson

    “Human rights can only be assured among a virtuous people. The general government . . . can never be in danger of degenerating into a monarchy, an oligarchy, an aristocracy, or any despotic or oppresive form so long as there is any virtue in the body of the people.”
    George Washington

    “Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.”
    Benjamin Franklin

    And on and on ad infinitum…

    Do you see the problem? Liberty and freedom can only exist where a majority of the people are virtuous (morally competent); and I cannot make you a virtuous person by leading a revolt and putting a gun to your head.

    “Is that not what the “Satanic global dictators” want are low-T men who only lament about their situation? I thought hard times make hard men…”

    No, it isn’t. See above. Satanic global dictators want morally incompetent people.

    “Not quite. Apparently you don’t fully understand the nature of the problem. What does “my” “strength” have to do with “your” moral incompetence and “your” spiritual blindness, for example?”

    So how are you able to know with absolute certainty regarding my apparent “moral incompetence” and “spiritual blindness”? Is it merely due to my challenge of your narrative? Or are you simply flinging something on the wall and hoping it sticks? Please clarify.

    “From what group of people would you expect to recruit an effective force to “rebel” against the establishment?”

    The Alt Right, “true” conservatives, and the deplorables. You have tens of thousands of (white) men ready to head the call.

    “Or would you expect me to lead a rebellion of one person, myself, against the establishment? If I don’t become a “suicide bomber” I’m a coward? Is that the gist of it?”

    No, you are not a coward, but you certainly are part of the same group of people that not only did nothing to resist the developing tyranny over the last 150 years, but generally actually assisted it.

    “The instant conflict is a spiritual one, and the people who truly see the evil for what it is, and who refuse to cooperate, accordingly, are very small in number.”

    The conflict is political, spiritual, AND financial in nature.

    “But let’s say for the sake of argument that I get 10 like minded people together and we “revolt” against the “establishment.” What would be our ultimate objective? To somehow restore “liberty and freedom”?”

    You have an army at your disposal. Furthermore, it depends upon what you believe entails “liberty and freedom”.

    “It’s impossible. But don’t take my word for it. I’ll quote some of the Founders and Framers (of the U.S. constitution)”

    Great, you cited wise men. But you neglected to take into account the context of their quotations.

    “Do you see the problem? Liberty and freedom can only exist where a majority of the people are virtuous (morally competent)”

    Assuming that you and your ilk are virtuous and the “enemy” is other than virtuous. That is a big leap to make.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Harold Smith
    "So how are you able to know with absolute certainty regarding my apparent “moral incompetence” and “spiritual blindness”? Is it merely due to my challenge of your narrative? Or are you simply flinging something on the wall and hoping it sticks? Please clarify."

    I was just using "you" as an example; it was rhetorical.

    "The Alt Right, 'true' conservatives, and the deplorables. You have tens of thousands of (white) men ready to head the call."

    I disagree. But let's say you're correct. Let's say there are 100,000 able-bodied, morally competent men willing to die to reestablish "liberty and freedom". That's only about 0.03% of "the people". Where are you going with that? Nowhere. Absent "virtue" in the general population, you'll accomplish nothing that will last.

    What has to happen here to restore "good government" is what happened in Russia: a spiritual revival. Nothing else will suffice.

    http://batr.org/reactionary/040714.html


    "No, you are not a coward, but you certainly are part of the same group of people that not only did nothing to resist the developing tyranny over the last 150 years, but generally actually assisted it."

    If you're referring to the people of the U.S. in general, then yes; if you're referring to me personally, then no, that's not correct.

    Years ago, I lost a high paying position and career in a DOD-related field for taking a moral and legal stand against the "beast" and its atrocities. I've lost "friends" and alienated family because of it. I've spent time and some money bringing pro se lawsuits against the beast, etc., all to no avail. And my latest efforts involve the study of Biblical prophecy and dissemination of the results. Unfortunately, this generally did nothing but further alienate people, and as a result, I'm now globally banned by youtube/google. I am not allowed to make any comments at all on any youtube channel where the subject matter is news, current events, politics, Biblical prophecy, etc.

    "The conflict is political, spiritual, AND financial in nature."

    I disagree. The fundament of the conflict is spiritual; everything else is a distraction that operates to keep people from realizing it. In fact this whole Western "culture" has been trashed/manipulated so as to prevent the people from getting in touch with their spirituality.

    "You have an army at your disposal. Furthermore, it depends upon what you believe entails “liberty and freedom."

    What "army"? Regardless, as I've endeavored to point out, absent a spiritual awakening of "the people" no "army" is going to fix what's wrong with the "West." Evil generally destroys itself. Evil is very similar to an aggressive cancer. There's no reasoning with it; it doesn't stop until it kills the host and itself, and that's where the corrupt "West" is headed.

    "Great, you cited wise men. But you neglected to take into account the context of their quotations."

    I thought the context was understood and the plainly-worded statements were rather self-explanatory and unambiguous. For example:

    "Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.'
    Benjamin Franklin"

    I see that as a truism that needs no further explanation.

    "Assuming that you and your ilk are virtuous and the “enemy” is other than virtuous. That is a big leap to make."

    So I'm a greedy, demon-possessed, devil-worshiping liar, malignant narcissist, pervert, mass-murderer, etc.?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  54. Corvinus says:
    @CalDre

    So what specific evidence do you have that this “vast majority of people are utterly brainwashed”? What makes YOU immune to this tide of propaganda?
     
    Let's see - how about "daily experience"? And I am not immune to propaganda, however, I have witnessed enough events first hand in other countries (and the vast majority of Americans have never visited other countries, I have visited dozens and lived in many), and paid enough attention to the countless times that the West governments have admitted lying, and conducted enough research to catch the mass media in constant lying, manipulation and propaganda (and this in ways that cannot be disputed - for example in referencing an actual document that I can also review, and thereby determine for myself the truth or falseness of the media's claims without relying on the credibility of any witness) that I have a high degree of confidence that I am less subject to it than the vast majority of folks.

    Could it not be likely that people have made their own decisions using reason and logic, and that you simply oppose their positions?
     
    No, in fact, it isn't. Well, in some cases, yes, but vast majority of folks are just blind sheep, like you, that without any reason or basis whatsoever, believe whatever garbage their CNN or Fox serves up to them. There is no "reason" or "logic" to believe a corporation or politician is telling the truth on any particular matter, the only logical conclusion is that this person believes what he is saying or at least wants others to believe this person does, but to conclude this person is telling the truth is just moronic and counter-logical.

    How are you decidedly able to know with absolute certainty that most Americans lack the ability to make up their minds about important matters?
     
    I am not decidedly able to know anything, certainly I don't know that you are a human being. I'm still leaning toward alpha software being developed at NSA.

    You have another opportunity here to show how you “thoroughly investigate matters”, so do not blow it again.
     
    I couldn't prove to you that the sun rose in the East today so why would I try to prove anything at all to you?

    “Let’s see – how about “daily experience”?”

    Which is prone to confirmation and recency bias.

    “I have witnessed enough events first hand in other countries (and the vast majority of Americans have never visited other countries, I have visited dozens and lived in many), and paid enough attention to the countless times that the West governments have admitted lying…”

    Just because there are instances where governments and the media lie does not mean that they are not to be entirely trusted. Each event is judged on its own merits, or lack thereof.

    “and conducted enough research to catch the mass media in constant lying, manipulation and propaganda (and this in ways that cannot be disputed – for example in referencing an actual document that I can also review, and thereby determine for myself the truth or falseness of the media’s claims without relying on the credibility of any witness)…”

    Once again, what is this “research”? You keep saying it, but don’t actually offer anything of substantive value.

    “That I have a high degree of confidence that I am less subject to it than the vast majority of folks.”

    And that would be shilling on your part. What makes you think that you, compared to others, are decidedly less prone to being duped?

    “No, in fact, it isn’t. Well, in some cases, yes, but vast majority of folks are just blind sheep, like you, that without any reason or basis whatsoever, believe whatever garbage their CNN or Fox serves up to them.”

    You wildly assume that 1) the vast majority of folks are blind, that 2) I fall into that category, and 3) I believe anything the media says. Over the top generalizations does not equal evidence. All you have hear is speculation. Remember, not all opinions are equal in weight.

    “There is no “reason” or “logic” to believe a corporation or politician is telling the truth on any particular matter, the only logical conclusion is that this person believes what he is saying or at least wants others to believe this person does, but to conclude this person is telling the truth is just moronic and counter-logical.”

    And this is EXACTLY your problem here–you automatically believe that companies and leaders are other than capable of expressing truth. Somehow, however, you undeniably know their intentions and motives and therefore discount their arguments. You are being illogical and unreasonable here.

    “Of course I have, in my own research, found hundreds and hundreds of cases of such deception, but no, I am not putting together further videos to prove it. This one is exemplary and all you get.”

    One example does not mean that in every and all situations and circumstances the government and media perpetually lie. You are being obtuse.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CalDre

    Which is prone to confirmation and recency bias.
     
    Prove that I am prone to confirmation and recency bias. You are making a conclusion about me, based on your "experience" (which, of course, is itself subject to your professed "confirmation and recency bias"). So once again you are proving your utter hypocrisy and lack of intellectual integrity, trying to claim something about me (about whom you know virtually nothing, certainly vastly less than I know about the mass media) based on your flawed generalizations and your illogical, hypocritical accusations.

    Just because there are instances where governments and the media lie does not mean that they are not to be entirely trusted.
     
    And my point is the media lies constantly. Their credibility is incredibly low. Indeed, sometimes they tell the truth, or what they believe is the truth (in cases where their agenda is not impacted, or where the truth helps their agenda), but truth is coincidental to their reporting, not the substance of it. Again, I have found then when researching the truth of news reports covering topics which is part of an active agenda (e.g., in the Russiagate case, demonizing Russia), I find dishonesty and lies to be extremely high, almost 100% of reports. If you want to see how I reach my conclusions in individual cases, the propaganda expose I posted in this thread, to which you did not respond, is exemplary.

    Once again, what is this “research”? You keep saying it, but don’t actually offer anything of substantive value.
     
    The same type of research a true journalist would do. Interviewing people who were personally involved. Reading other news sources that provide other points of view (this is very helpful because the vast majority of the time, mass media lies are based on material omissions, rather than outright lies - they simply leave out facts; e.g. in the clip I posed, the BBC deliberately leaves out the conclusive proof that the National Guard had just shot 7 unarmed civilians when someone shot at them, utterly righteously (the guy actually seemed like an off-duty or undercover cop, I have reason to think so from all the videos I watched, not all are in the clip, but that's beyond the point), and that they had shot journalists; this in context of their utterly different coverage of the radical insurgents who were attacking government positions in Kiev regularly in the months before and in which the BBC was hyper critical if the government just tried to stop the protesters from unlawfully blocking the streets, which they did for months). Reading government "confessions" years after the event, after data is "declassified" (e.g., the admission that the "Gulf of Tonkin" incident, used to justify the murder of 2 million Vietnamese, was a lie). Finally, in the last few years, the wide availability of video recordings of events has proved very useful. The BBC clip is one example of that but I have done this in a very large number of cases, and consistently, highly consistently, found the Western mass media to be liars and deceivers.

    Incidentally there is another excellent video which proves how British media - in this case ITN - deliberately lied about alleged "genocide" by the Serbians, in a report that was a causus belli for the unlawful war against Serbia. In this case, video evidence again proves deliberate, material and malicious lies by Western media to beat the drums for war. You can find a brief description of the "debunking" video here see it here:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtQ-PJLIpcE


    And that would be shilling on your part. What makes you think that you, compared to others, are decidedly less prone to being duped?
     
    First I am far smarter than most people - IQ >> 130. Second I do a lot of research on what actually happened, rather than playing video games or watching the Kardashians or other garbage on TV. Garbage in, garbage out.

    You wildly assume that 1) the vast majority of folks are blind, that 2) I fall into that category, and 3) I believe anything the media says. Over the top generalizations does not equal evidence. ... Remember, not all opinions are equal in weight.
     
    1) Not assuming, see above. 2) Clearly you do, at least from the mass media worship you have displayed in our interactions. 3) You keep asserting the media is to be believed, so I am not assuming it, you keep claiming it.

    And this is EXACTLY your problem here–you automatically believe that companies and leaders are other than capable of expressing truth.
     
    Prove that this attitude is a "problem".
     Prove that I "automatically believe that companies and leaders are [not] capable of expressing truth". Incidentally I never even suggested the last point, I didn't say they are incapable of attempting to be truthful, I claimed that they don't care about the truth and their credibility is about zero (what they say may be true, may not, at least with a large category of events, I would not rely on the media for any important decision - now if the local media tells me there is an accident on the interstate and traffic is blocked, OK, probably that is true, if the national media tells me some country that is not a US vassal murdered some citizens, or had "rape rooms", I would need to have actual proof to believe that, and not some interview of a "witness", I am quite familiar of how the media cherry picks for liars and tall tale tellers and how it pays people to lie).

    One example does not mean that in every and all situations and circumstances the government and media perpetually lie. You are being obtuse.
     
    Rather, you are being obtuse. You just believe the mass media because you are a gullible sheep. There is no scientific basis to believe the mass media is reporting actual events. Any testing will prove they consistently are wrong, lie, distort, deceive, all in material respects. If your spouse or sibling did this to you, on even just a few occasions (rather than as consistently as the media does), you would stop trusting him or her. But the mass media, you will believe their next lie happily and gloriously, and condemn someone (like me) who doesn't. Precisely because you are super obtuse, a sheep bleating to his masters. Pathetic.
    , @CalDre
    The ITN expose video I linked in prior response has some problems, it is also available in three parts here:

    Part 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xox7TR11evI

    Part 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VEQpUlh51xU

    Part 3: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPiAWbIbAyM
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  55. @reiner Tor
    You are assuming no one will supply Iran with air defense systems or other military hardware to inflict casualties on the US. That assumption could prove wrong.

    It took three months to convince Serbia to submit to US demands. How long will it take the vastly larger Iranian regime to do so..?

    Don’t bother with that delusional fuckwit Peter, on an earlier thread he thought that the war with Iran would last only 3 months!! What the fuck he hasn’t heard of its neighbour Afghanistan where the fighting is going on for a full 17 years!! The only answer for his strangelovian fuckwittery is that he’s Jewish and wants Uncle Schmuel to once again fight Israel’s wars.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  56. G Pinfold says:
    @Harold Smith
    “Interesting opinion.

    So, basically, you are strong enough only to talk about your contempt, but not actually do something about it. Because of fear. Or it’s untenable. Or whatever.”

    Not quite. Apparently you don’t fully understand the nature of the problem. What does “my” “strength” have to do with “your” moral incompetence and “your” spiritual blindness, for example? All I can do is lead “you” to the water; I can’t make “you” drink.

    Anyway (putting aside the issue of the nature of the problem for the moment), in your earlier comment, you asked CalDre: “Are you willing to organize an outright rebellion against the banksters and Zionists and SAVE “your” nation from destruction..[?]”

    From what group of people would you expect to recruit an effective force to “rebel” against the establishment? From the same group of people that not only did nothing to resist the developing tyranny over the last 150 years, but generally actually assisted it?

    Or would you expect me to lead a rebellion of one person, myself, against the establishment? If I don’t become a “suicide bomber” I’m a coward? Is that the gist of it?

    “In essence, you are deserving of getting it good and hard because you lack the gumption and guile to stop being repeatedly curb stomped.”

    Are you referring to me personally or U.S. citizens collectively? In any case, it’s clear that you aren’t very familiar with the Bible and the spiritual axioms therein.

    The instant conflict is a spiritual one, and the people who truly see the evil for what it is, and who refuse to cooperate, accordingly, are very small in number.

    But let’s say for the sake of argument that I get 10 like minded people together and we “revolt” against the “establishment.” What would be our ultimate objective? To somehow restore “liberty and freedom”?

    It’s impossible. But don’t take my word for it. I’ll quote some of the Founders and Framers (of the U.S. constitution):

    “A Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever.”
    ― John Adams, Letters of John Adams, Addressed to His Wife

    “Among a people generally corrupt liberty cannot long exist.”
    Edmund Burke

    “If men be good, government cannot be bad.”
    William Penn

    “No people can be great who have ceased to be virtuous.”
    Samuel Johnson

    “No free government, or the blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any people, but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality and virtue, and by frequent recurrence to fundamental principles.”
    George Mason

    “Without virtue, happiness cannot be.”
    Thomas Jefferson

    “Human rights can only be assured among a virtuous people. The general government . . . can never be in danger of degenerating into a monarchy, an oligarchy, an aristocracy, or any despotic or oppresive form so long as there is any virtue in the body of the people.”
    George Washington

    “Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.”
    Benjamin Franklin

    And on and on ad infinitum…

    Do you see the problem? Liberty and freedom can only exist where a majority of the people are virtuous (morally competent); and I cannot make you a virtuous person by leading a revolt and putting a gun to your head.

    “Is that not what the “Satanic global dictators” want are low-T men who only lament about their situation? I thought hard times make hard men…”

    No, it isn’t. See above. Satanic global dictators want morally incompetent people.

    Great reply Harold, but you may be overthinking it. I think he is just looking for a real man to meet him at a truck stop. He doesn’t really want to start a ‘rebellion’.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  57. CalDre says:
    @Corvinus
    "Let's see - how about "daily experience"?"

    Which is prone to confirmation and recency bias.

    "I have witnessed enough events first hand in other countries (and the vast majority of Americans have never visited other countries, I have visited dozens and lived in many), and paid enough attention to the countless times that the West governments have admitted lying..."

    Just because there are instances where governments and the media lie does not mean that they are not to be entirely trusted. Each event is judged on its own merits, or lack thereof.

    "and conducted enough research to catch the mass media in constant lying, manipulation and propaganda (and this in ways that cannot be disputed - for example in referencing an actual document that I can also review, and thereby determine for myself the truth or falseness of the media's claims without relying on the credibility of any witness)..."

    Once again, what is this "research"? You keep saying it, but don't actually offer anything of substantive value.

    "That I have a high degree of confidence that I am less subject to it than the vast majority of folks."

    And that would be shilling on your part. What makes you think that you, compared to others, are decidedly less prone to being duped?

    "No, in fact, it isn't. Well, in some cases, yes, but vast majority of folks are just blind sheep, like you, that without any reason or basis whatsoever, believe whatever garbage their CNN or Fox serves up to them."

    You wildly assume that 1) the vast majority of folks are blind, that 2) I fall into that category, and 3) I believe anything the media says. Over the top generalizations does not equal evidence. All you have hear is speculation. Remember, not all opinions are equal in weight.

    "There is no "reason" or "logic" to believe a corporation or politician is telling the truth on any particular matter, the only logical conclusion is that this person believes what he is saying or at least wants others to believe this person does, but to conclude this person is telling the truth is just moronic and counter-logical."

    And this is EXACTLY your problem here--you automatically believe that companies and leaders are other than capable of expressing truth. Somehow, however, you undeniably know their intentions and motives and therefore discount their arguments. You are being illogical and unreasonable here.

    "Of course I have, in my own research, found hundreds and hundreds of cases of such deception, but no, I am not putting together further videos to prove it. This one is exemplary and all you get."

    One example does not mean that in every and all situations and circumstances the government and media perpetually lie. You are being obtuse.

    Which is prone to confirmation and recency bias.

    Prove that I am prone to confirmation and recency bias. You are making a conclusion about me, based on your “experience” (which, of course, is itself subject to your professed “confirmation and recency bias”). So once again you are proving your utter hypocrisy and lack of intellectual integrity, trying to claim something about me (about whom you know virtually nothing, certainly vastly less than I know about the mass media) based on your flawed generalizations and your illogical, hypocritical accusations.

    Just because there are instances where governments and the media lie does not mean that they are not to be entirely trusted.

    And my point is the media lies constantly. Their credibility is incredibly low. Indeed, sometimes they tell the truth, or what they believe is the truth (in cases where their agenda is not impacted, or where the truth helps their agenda), but truth is coincidental to their reporting, not the substance of it. Again, I have found then when researching the truth of news reports covering topics which is part of an active agenda (e.g., in the Russiagate case, demonizing Russia), I find dishonesty and lies to be extremely high, almost 100% of reports. If you want to see how I reach my conclusions in individual cases, the propaganda expose I posted in this thread, to which you did not respond, is exemplary.

    Once again, what is this “research”? You keep saying it, but don’t actually offer anything of substantive value.

    The same type of research a true journalist would do. Interviewing people who were personally involved. Reading other news sources that provide other points of view (this is very helpful because the vast majority of the time, mass media lies are based on material omissions, rather than outright lies – they simply leave out facts; e.g. in the clip I posed, the BBC deliberately leaves out the conclusive proof that the National Guard had just shot 7 unarmed civilians when someone shot at them, utterly righteously (the guy actually seemed like an off-duty or undercover cop, I have reason to think so from all the videos I watched, not all are in the clip, but that’s beyond the point), and that they had shot journalists; this in context of their utterly different coverage of the radical insurgents who were attacking government positions in Kiev regularly in the months before and in which the BBC was hyper critical if the government just tried to stop the protesters from unlawfully blocking the streets, which they did for months). Reading government “confessions” years after the event, after data is “declassified” (e.g., the admission that the “Gulf of Tonkin” incident, used to justify the murder of 2 million Vietnamese, was a lie). Finally, in the last few years, the wide availability of video recordings of events has proved very useful. The BBC clip is one example of that but I have done this in a very large number of cases, and consistently, highly consistently, found the Western mass media to be liars and deceivers.

    Incidentally there is another excellent video which proves how British media – in this case ITN – deliberately lied about alleged “genocide” by the Serbians, in a report that was a causus belli for the unlawful war against Serbia. In this case, video evidence again proves deliberate, material and malicious lies by Western media to beat the drums for war. You can find a brief description of the “debunking” video here see it here:

    And that would be shilling on your part. What makes you think that you, compared to others, are decidedly less prone to being duped?

    First I am far smarter than most people – IQ >> 130. Second I do a lot of research on what actually happened, rather than playing video games or watching the Kardashians or other garbage on TV. Garbage in, garbage out.

    You wildly assume that 1) the vast majority of folks are blind, that 2) I fall into that category, and 3) I believe anything the media says. Over the top generalizations does not equal evidence. … Remember, not all opinions are equal in weight.

    1) Not assuming, see above. 2) Clearly you do, at least from the mass media worship you have displayed in our interactions. 3) You keep asserting the media is to be believed, so I am not assuming it, you keep claiming it.

    And this is EXACTLY your problem here–you automatically believe that companies and leaders are other than capable of expressing truth.

    Prove that this attitude is a “problem”.

    Prove that I “automatically believe that companies and leaders are [not] capable of expressing truth”. Incidentally I never even suggested the last point, I didn’t say they are incapable of attempting to be truthful, I claimed that they don’t care about the truth and their credibility is about zero (what they say may be true, may not, at least with a large category of events, I would not rely on the media for any important decision – now if the local media tells me there is an accident on the interstate and traffic is blocked, OK, probably that is true, if the national media tells me some country that is not a US vassal murdered some citizens, or had “rape rooms”, I would need to have actual proof to believe that, and not some interview of a “witness”, I am quite familiar of how the media cherry picks for liars and tall tale tellers and how it pays people to lie).

    One example does not mean that in every and all situations and circumstances the government and media perpetually lie. You are being obtuse.

    Rather, you are being obtuse. You just believe the mass media because you are a gullible sheep. There is no scientific basis to believe the mass media is reporting actual events. Any testing will prove they consistently are wrong, lie, distort, deceive, all in material respects. If your spouse or sibling did this to you, on even just a few occasions (rather than as consistently as the media does), you would stop trusting him or her. But the mass media, you will believe their next lie happily and gloriously, and condemn someone (like me) who doesn’t. Precisely because you are super obtuse, a sheep bleating to his masters. Pathetic.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "You are making a conclusion about me, based on your “experience” (which, of course, is itself subject to your professed “confirmation and recency bias”). So once again you are proving your utter hypocrisy and lack of intellectual integrity, trying to claim something about me (about whom you know virtually nothing, certainly vastly less than I know about the mass media) based on your flawed generalizations and your illogical, hypocritical accusations."

    You are very predictable here.

    1. You jump to conclusions, say your experiences trump other people's experiences, and that everyone who disagrees with those conclusions are other than intelligent.

    2.You make unsubstantiated claims, are called on to provide specific evidence to support those claims, and then demand other people who call you out to offer proof, even though you are not holding yourself to that same standard.

    Exactly why you are prone to confirmation and recency bias.

    "And my point is the media lies constantly. Their credibility is incredibly low. Indeed, sometimes they tell the truth, or what they believe is the truth (in cases where their agenda is not impacted, or where the truth helps their agenda), but truth is coincidental to their reporting, not the substance of it."

    If the media "sometimes" tells the truth, then your assertion that it lies "almost 100% of reports" is observable false.

    "Again, I have found then when researching the truth of news reports covering topics which is part of an active agenda (e.g., in the Russiagate case, demonizing Russia), I find dishonesty and lies to be extremely high, almost 100% of reports."

    You are overgeneralizing here, which seems to be your calling card. I get it. Any facts or figures or positions than run contrary to your own are dismissed. It's much easier that way.

    "The BBC clip is one example of that but I have done this in a very large number of cases, and consistently, highly consistently, found the Western mass media to be liars and deceivers."

    What you have found out is that you think you believe the media are nearly exclusively liars and deceivers. That is a mighty charge there, one that requires extensive analysis, rather than a mere opinion.

    "First I am far smarter than most people – IQ >> 130."

    Unless you have verification, We. Don't. Care. And the higher the IQ, the more likely a person think they are less prone to these universal thinking mistakes.

    "Second I do a lot of research on what actually happened..."

    What you believe actually happened, which may or may not be accurate.

    "2) Clearly you do, at least from the mass media worship you have displayed in our interactions."

    False characterization. I take in media, vet the sources, compare interpretations and arguments and positions, and develop conclusions.

    "3) You keep asserting the media is to be believed, so I am not assuming it, you keep claiming it."

    No, I am asserting that the media is to be properly scrutinized, but not to the point where a person is conditions to believe it only tells lies and promotes falsehoods. Each story is based on its own merits.

    "I claimed that they don’t care about the truth and their credibility is about zero (what they say may be true, may not, at least with a large category of events, I would not rely on the media for any important decision – now if the local media tells me there is an accident on the interstate and traffic is blocked..."

    Right, YOU personally choose not to rely on the media for any important decisions. That is YOUR opinion. If people make the decision to use the media to guide them to make informed choices, and you claim they are being illogical or unreasonable in this process, then YOU have the burden to show exactly how and why their line of thinking is flawed.

    "OK, probably that is true, if the national media tells me some country that is not a US vassal murdered some citizens, or had “rape rooms”, I would need to have actual proof to believe that, and not some interview of a “witness”"

    There are different types of evidence. You are focusing on only one ("actual proof"), and basing everything on that standard. What constitutes "actual proof" in your mind?

    "You just believe the mass media because you are a gullible sheep.

    "There is no scientific basis to believe the mass media is reporting actual events."

    Another wild generalization here. So, what evidence other than your "experience" are you able to provide to offer particular support for this claim?

    "Any testing will prove they consistently are wrong, lie, distort, deceive, all in material respects."

    Better rethink your hypothesis.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/how-biased-is-the-media-really/2012/04/27/gIQA9jYLmT_story.html?utm_term=.2adb01d4247b
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  58. CalDre says:
    @Corvinus
    "Let's see - how about "daily experience"?"

    Which is prone to confirmation and recency bias.

    "I have witnessed enough events first hand in other countries (and the vast majority of Americans have never visited other countries, I have visited dozens and lived in many), and paid enough attention to the countless times that the West governments have admitted lying..."

    Just because there are instances where governments and the media lie does not mean that they are not to be entirely trusted. Each event is judged on its own merits, or lack thereof.

    "and conducted enough research to catch the mass media in constant lying, manipulation and propaganda (and this in ways that cannot be disputed - for example in referencing an actual document that I can also review, and thereby determine for myself the truth or falseness of the media's claims without relying on the credibility of any witness)..."

    Once again, what is this "research"? You keep saying it, but don't actually offer anything of substantive value.

    "That I have a high degree of confidence that I am less subject to it than the vast majority of folks."

    And that would be shilling on your part. What makes you think that you, compared to others, are decidedly less prone to being duped?

    "No, in fact, it isn't. Well, in some cases, yes, but vast majority of folks are just blind sheep, like you, that without any reason or basis whatsoever, believe whatever garbage their CNN or Fox serves up to them."

    You wildly assume that 1) the vast majority of folks are blind, that 2) I fall into that category, and 3) I believe anything the media says. Over the top generalizations does not equal evidence. All you have hear is speculation. Remember, not all opinions are equal in weight.

    "There is no "reason" or "logic" to believe a corporation or politician is telling the truth on any particular matter, the only logical conclusion is that this person believes what he is saying or at least wants others to believe this person does, but to conclude this person is telling the truth is just moronic and counter-logical."

    And this is EXACTLY your problem here--you automatically believe that companies and leaders are other than capable of expressing truth. Somehow, however, you undeniably know their intentions and motives and therefore discount their arguments. You are being illogical and unreasonable here.

    "Of course I have, in my own research, found hundreds and hundreds of cases of such deception, but no, I am not putting together further videos to prove it. This one is exemplary and all you get."

    One example does not mean that in every and all situations and circumstances the government and media perpetually lie. You are being obtuse.

    The ITN expose video I linked in prior response has some problems, it is also available in three parts here:

    Part 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xox7TR11evI

    Part 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VEQpUlh51xU

    Part 3: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPiAWbIbAyM

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  59. bluedog says:
    @NoseytheDuke
    Agh, you didn't finish your comment. Peter the Great what? Ignoramus? Idiot? Fool? Knownothing? Twat? Mutant Ninja Typing Monkey? All of those? Kindly address this oversight for me. Thanks

    Lol all of the above…..

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  60. Corvinus says:
    @CalDre

    Which is prone to confirmation and recency bias.
     
    Prove that I am prone to confirmation and recency bias. You are making a conclusion about me, based on your "experience" (which, of course, is itself subject to your professed "confirmation and recency bias"). So once again you are proving your utter hypocrisy and lack of intellectual integrity, trying to claim something about me (about whom you know virtually nothing, certainly vastly less than I know about the mass media) based on your flawed generalizations and your illogical, hypocritical accusations.

    Just because there are instances where governments and the media lie does not mean that they are not to be entirely trusted.
     
    And my point is the media lies constantly. Their credibility is incredibly low. Indeed, sometimes they tell the truth, or what they believe is the truth (in cases where their agenda is not impacted, or where the truth helps their agenda), but truth is coincidental to their reporting, not the substance of it. Again, I have found then when researching the truth of news reports covering topics which is part of an active agenda (e.g., in the Russiagate case, demonizing Russia), I find dishonesty and lies to be extremely high, almost 100% of reports. If you want to see how I reach my conclusions in individual cases, the propaganda expose I posted in this thread, to which you did not respond, is exemplary.

    Once again, what is this “research”? You keep saying it, but don’t actually offer anything of substantive value.
     
    The same type of research a true journalist would do. Interviewing people who were personally involved. Reading other news sources that provide other points of view (this is very helpful because the vast majority of the time, mass media lies are based on material omissions, rather than outright lies - they simply leave out facts; e.g. in the clip I posed, the BBC deliberately leaves out the conclusive proof that the National Guard had just shot 7 unarmed civilians when someone shot at them, utterly righteously (the guy actually seemed like an off-duty or undercover cop, I have reason to think so from all the videos I watched, not all are in the clip, but that's beyond the point), and that they had shot journalists; this in context of their utterly different coverage of the radical insurgents who were attacking government positions in Kiev regularly in the months before and in which the BBC was hyper critical if the government just tried to stop the protesters from unlawfully blocking the streets, which they did for months). Reading government "confessions" years after the event, after data is "declassified" (e.g., the admission that the "Gulf of Tonkin" incident, used to justify the murder of 2 million Vietnamese, was a lie). Finally, in the last few years, the wide availability of video recordings of events has proved very useful. The BBC clip is one example of that but I have done this in a very large number of cases, and consistently, highly consistently, found the Western mass media to be liars and deceivers.

    Incidentally there is another excellent video which proves how British media - in this case ITN - deliberately lied about alleged "genocide" by the Serbians, in a report that was a causus belli for the unlawful war against Serbia. In this case, video evidence again proves deliberate, material and malicious lies by Western media to beat the drums for war. You can find a brief description of the "debunking" video here see it here:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtQ-PJLIpcE


    And that would be shilling on your part. What makes you think that you, compared to others, are decidedly less prone to being duped?
     
    First I am far smarter than most people - IQ >> 130. Second I do a lot of research on what actually happened, rather than playing video games or watching the Kardashians or other garbage on TV. Garbage in, garbage out.

    You wildly assume that 1) the vast majority of folks are blind, that 2) I fall into that category, and 3) I believe anything the media says. Over the top generalizations does not equal evidence. ... Remember, not all opinions are equal in weight.
     
    1) Not assuming, see above. 2) Clearly you do, at least from the mass media worship you have displayed in our interactions. 3) You keep asserting the media is to be believed, so I am not assuming it, you keep claiming it.

    And this is EXACTLY your problem here–you automatically believe that companies and leaders are other than capable of expressing truth.
     
    Prove that this attitude is a "problem".
     Prove that I "automatically believe that companies and leaders are [not] capable of expressing truth". Incidentally I never even suggested the last point, I didn't say they are incapable of attempting to be truthful, I claimed that they don't care about the truth and their credibility is about zero (what they say may be true, may not, at least with a large category of events, I would not rely on the media for any important decision - now if the local media tells me there is an accident on the interstate and traffic is blocked, OK, probably that is true, if the national media tells me some country that is not a US vassal murdered some citizens, or had "rape rooms", I would need to have actual proof to believe that, and not some interview of a "witness", I am quite familiar of how the media cherry picks for liars and tall tale tellers and how it pays people to lie).

    One example does not mean that in every and all situations and circumstances the government and media perpetually lie. You are being obtuse.
     
    Rather, you are being obtuse. You just believe the mass media because you are a gullible sheep. There is no scientific basis to believe the mass media is reporting actual events. Any testing will prove they consistently are wrong, lie, distort, deceive, all in material respects. If your spouse or sibling did this to you, on even just a few occasions (rather than as consistently as the media does), you would stop trusting him or her. But the mass media, you will believe their next lie happily and gloriously, and condemn someone (like me) who doesn't. Precisely because you are super obtuse, a sheep bleating to his masters. Pathetic.

    “You are making a conclusion about me, based on your “experience” (which, of course, is itself subject to your professed “confirmation and recency bias”). So once again you are proving your utter hypocrisy and lack of intellectual integrity, trying to claim something about me (about whom you know virtually nothing, certainly vastly less than I know about the mass media) based on your flawed generalizations and your illogical, hypocritical accusations.”

    You are very predictable here.

    1. You jump to conclusions, say your experiences trump other people’s experiences, and that everyone who disagrees with those conclusions are other than intelligent.

    2.You make unsubstantiated claims, are called on to provide specific evidence to support those claims, and then demand other people who call you out to offer proof, even though you are not holding yourself to that same standard.

    Exactly why you are prone to confirmation and recency bias.

    “And my point is the media lies constantly. Their credibility is incredibly low. Indeed, sometimes they tell the truth, or what they believe is the truth (in cases where their agenda is not impacted, or where the truth helps their agenda), but truth is coincidental to their reporting, not the substance of it.”

    If the media “sometimes” tells the truth, then your assertion that it lies “almost 100% of reports” is observable false.

    “Again, I have found then when researching the truth of news reports covering topics which is part of an active agenda (e.g., in the Russiagate case, demonizing Russia), I find dishonesty and lies to be extremely high, almost 100% of reports.”

    You are overgeneralizing here, which seems to be your calling card. I get it. Any facts or figures or positions than run contrary to your own are dismissed. It’s much easier that way.

    “The BBC clip is one example of that but I have done this in a very large number of cases, and consistently, highly consistently, found the Western mass media to be liars and deceivers.”

    What you have found out is that you think you believe the media are nearly exclusively liars and deceivers. That is a mighty charge there, one that requires extensive analysis, rather than a mere opinion.

    “First I am far smarter than most people – IQ >> 130.”

    Unless you have verification, We. Don’t. Care. And the higher the IQ, the more likely a person think they are less prone to these universal thinking mistakes.

    “Second I do a lot of research on what actually happened…”

    What you believe actually happened, which may or may not be accurate.

    “2) Clearly you do, at least from the mass media worship you have displayed in our interactions.”

    False characterization. I take in media, vet the sources, compare interpretations and arguments and positions, and develop conclusions.

    “3) You keep asserting the media is to be believed, so I am not assuming it, you keep claiming it.”

    No, I am asserting that the media is to be properly scrutinized, but not to the point where a person is conditions to believe it only tells lies and promotes falsehoods. Each story is based on its own merits.

    “I claimed that they don’t care about the truth and their credibility is about zero (what they say may be true, may not, at least with a large category of events, I would not rely on the media for any important decision – now if the local media tells me there is an accident on the interstate and traffic is blocked…”

    Right, YOU personally choose not to rely on the media for any important decisions. That is YOUR opinion. If people make the decision to use the media to guide them to make informed choices, and you claim they are being illogical or unreasonable in this process, then YOU have the burden to show exactly how and why their line of thinking is flawed.

    “OK, probably that is true, if the national media tells me some country that is not a US vassal murdered some citizens, or had “rape rooms”, I would need to have actual proof to believe that, and not some interview of a “witness””

    There are different types of evidence. You are focusing on only one (“actual proof”), and basing everything on that standard. What constitutes “actual proof” in your mind?

    “You just believe the mass media because you are a gullible sheep.

    “There is no scientific basis to believe the mass media is reporting actual events.”

    Another wild generalization here. So, what evidence other than your “experience” are you able to provide to offer particular support for this claim?

    “Any testing will prove they consistently are wrong, lie, distort, deceive, all in material respects.”

    Better rethink your hypothesis.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/how-biased-is-the-media-really/2012/04/27/gIQA9jYLmT_story.html?utm_term=.2adb01d4247b

    Read More
    • Replies: @CalDre

    You are very predictable here.

    1. You jump to conclusions, say your experiences trump other people’s experiences, and that everyone who disagrees with those conclusions are other than intelligent.

     
    Your predictability is twofold. First, you make accusations which have no basis in fact. Second, you ask me to prove something which is apparent to the most basic observer. So, back at you: prove where I wrote "everyone who disagrees with [my] conclusions are other than intelligent". You have your work cut out for you. You made a specific claim about a very small set of written, reviewable interactions we had. Come on, prove your point. Or are you a liar, just like the mass media?

    As to my experience trumping others' experience, that is, of course, human nature. Everyone believes what they believe, not what others believe, except for sheep. Oh yeah, that's you.

    2.You make unsubstantiated claims, are called on to provide specific evidence to support those claims, and then demand other people who call you out to offer proof, even though you are not holding yourself to that same standard.
     
    Everyone makes unsubstantiated claims. If you had to prove every single thing you said, you'd hardly make any progress, would you? As I have several times suggested in our interactions, you cannot even prove to me that you are a human being, rather than an AI bot. And that is a relatively simple proof. So, go ahead, you have your work cut out for you. Prove you are a human being. Now. Come on, you can do it, or aren't you human???

    If the media “sometimes” tells the truth, then your assertion that it lies “almost 100% of reports” is observable false.
     
    OK, you got me, I engaged in hyperbole on a comment board. Anyone with a reasonable amount of intelligence would have caught that. The fact that you didn't means (a) you are quite dumb (the AI alpha software? prove it's not!), or (b) you are being, again, an arse.

    You are overgeneralizing here, which seems to be your calling card. I get it. Any facts or figures or positions than run contrary to your own are dismissed. It’s much easier that way.
     
    Prove that I ever suggested that "any facts or figures or positions than run contrary to [m] own are dismissed". Again, we have a very limited set of interactions. The board for your proof is a small one. This should be easy. You have your challenge. Prove that your accusation is true.

    What you have found out is that you think you believe the media are nearly exclusively liars and deceivers. That is a mighty charge there, one that requires extensive analysis, rather than a mere opinion.
     
    What I have found out is that the media, particularly when it comes to matters that impact their agenda and cannot be simply disproved by the masses, are chronic, habitual liars. They cannot be trusted, at all.

    But frankly there is also a gross amount of incompetence. I have read numerous news reports in the media in which I was involved, and observed the events. In every single case, there was a clear material mis-characterization of something that happened. Like you, for example, mis-charaterizing what I wrote. We will leave it up to others if that is malice or incompetence.

    Unless you have verification, We. Don’t. Care. And the higher the IQ, the more likely a person think they are less prone to these universal thinking mistakes.
     
    Then why did you ask? You ask a question someone answers it, then you say "We. Don't. Care."? That about sums you up, right there, your character and attitude, the type of person - or AI program - you are.

    What you believe actually happened, which may or may not be accurate.
     
    Another asinine comment, come on, keep them coming. But watch the video, and tell me how honest and forthcoming your mass media liars are. Yeah, the very BBC that one day was calling Yanukovych a tyrant and thug one day for trying to prevent violent protesters from throwing Molotov cocktails against peaceful riot police, said nothing when their side had a violent revolution and then murdered numerous people in the street, including a journalist, for no reason. Even though they had video of it. That pretty much sums up the media you are so adamantly defending with your insults and mis-characterizations. It's really all quite funny to me, lol.

    False characterization. I take in media, vet the sources, compare interpretations and arguments and positions, and develop conclusions.
     
    Yeah, sure you do, you keep telling yourself that. Oh, and while you're at it, prove it. Come on, you made a claim, prove it. You sure got your work cut out for you! LOL. Yeah, back at ya, sheep-AI-man.

    There are different types of evidence. You are focusing on only one (“actual proof”), and basing everything on that standard. What constitutes “actual proof” in your mind?
     
    When it comes to something like "rape rooms" or murder of civilians - oh, well, that video I linked of the soldiers murdering the civilians in Mariupol in cold blood, which BBC ignored and turned on its head to accuse the civilians of having a "battle" with the soldiers, that video (with the 3 videos I included in it, though I had a number more which I could have used to prove the point) would prove the claim. But, interestingly, the mass media used an excerpt of the video to prove a "lie". And that is exactly why I don't trust the mass media, that is their modus operandi.

    “There is no scientific basis to believe the mass media is reporting actual events.”

    Another wild generalization here. So, what evidence other than your “experience” are you able to provide to offer particular support for this claim?

     
    So, if there is scientific evidence proving the truthfulness of the media, please do provide it. You have your work cut out for you.

    Better rethink your hypothesis.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/how-biased-is-the-media-really/2012/04/27/gIQA9jYLmT_story.html?utm_term=.2adb01d4247b

     
    Hahahahahaahahahaahaha! Washington Post! Yeah, right, they are such massive, malicious evil liars they have long ago fallen off my interest page. I read a wide array of news sources and WaPo is virtually the worst. Well, I do follow them on my Twitter account, just to mock their constant lies, slanders, war-mongering and other evil deeds, but yeah, they are profoundly and incorrigibly evil, reading them is like reading Goebbels for your news about Jews.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  61. @Corvinus
    "Not quite. Apparently you don’t fully understand the nature of the problem. What does “my” “strength” have to do with “your” moral incompetence and “your” spiritual blindness, for example?"

    So how are you able to know with absolute certainty regarding my apparent "moral incompetence" and "spiritual blindness"? Is it merely due to my challenge of your narrative? Or are you simply flinging something on the wall and hoping it sticks? Please clarify.

    "From what group of people would you expect to recruit an effective force to “rebel” against the establishment?"

    The Alt Right, "true" conservatives, and the deplorables. You have tens of thousands of (white) men ready to head the call.

    "Or would you expect me to lead a rebellion of one person, myself, against the establishment? If I don’t become a “suicide bomber” I’m a coward? Is that the gist of it?"

    No, you are not a coward, but you certainly are part of the same group of people that not only did nothing to resist the developing tyranny over the last 150 years, but generally actually assisted it.

    "The instant conflict is a spiritual one, and the people who truly see the evil for what it is, and who refuse to cooperate, accordingly, are very small in number."

    The conflict is political, spiritual, AND financial in nature.

    "But let’s say for the sake of argument that I get 10 like minded people together and we “revolt” against the “establishment.” What would be our ultimate objective? To somehow restore “liberty and freedom”?"

    You have an army at your disposal. Furthermore, it depends upon what you believe entails "liberty and freedom".

    "It’s impossible. But don’t take my word for it. I’ll quote some of the Founders and Framers (of the U.S. constitution)"

    Great, you cited wise men. But you neglected to take into account the context of their quotations.

    "Do you see the problem? Liberty and freedom can only exist where a majority of the people are virtuous (morally competent)"

    Assuming that you and your ilk are virtuous and the "enemy" is other than virtuous. That is a big leap to make.

    “So how are you able to know with absolute certainty regarding my apparent “moral incompetence” and “spiritual blindness”? Is it merely due to my challenge of your narrative? Or are you simply flinging something on the wall and hoping it sticks? Please clarify.”

    I was just using “you” as an example; it was rhetorical.

    “The Alt Right, ‘true’ conservatives, and the deplorables. You have tens of thousands of (white) men ready to head the call.”

    I disagree. But let’s say you’re correct. Let’s say there are 100,000 able-bodied, morally competent men willing to die to reestablish “liberty and freedom”. That’s only about 0.03% of “the people”. Where are you going with that? Nowhere. Absent “virtue” in the general population, you’ll accomplish nothing that will last.

    What has to happen here to restore “good government” is what happened in Russia: a spiritual revival. Nothing else will suffice.

    http://batr.org/reactionary/040714.html

    “No, you are not a coward, but you certainly are part of the same group of people that not only did nothing to resist the developing tyranny over the last 150 years, but generally actually assisted it.”

    If you’re referring to the people of the U.S. in general, then yes; if you’re referring to me personally, then no, that’s not correct.

    Years ago, I lost a high paying position and career in a DOD-related field for taking a moral and legal stand against the “beast” and its atrocities. I’ve lost “friends” and alienated family because of it. I’ve spent time and some money bringing pro se lawsuits against the beast, etc., all to no avail. And my latest efforts involve the study of Biblical prophecy and dissemination of the results. Unfortunately, this generally did nothing but further alienate people, and as a result, I’m now globally banned by youtube/google. I am not allowed to make any comments at all on any youtube channel where the subject matter is news, current events, politics, Biblical prophecy, etc.

    “The conflict is political, spiritual, AND financial in nature.”

    I disagree. The fundament of the conflict is spiritual; everything else is a distraction that operates to keep people from realizing it. In fact this whole Western “culture” has been trashed/manipulated so as to prevent the people from getting in touch with their spirituality.

    “You have an army at your disposal. Furthermore, it depends upon what you believe entails “liberty and freedom.”

    What “army”? Regardless, as I’ve endeavored to point out, absent a spiritual awakening of “the people” no “army” is going to fix what’s wrong with the “West.” Evil generally destroys itself. Evil is very similar to an aggressive cancer. There’s no reasoning with it; it doesn’t stop until it kills the host and itself, and that’s where the corrupt “West” is headed.

    “Great, you cited wise men. But you neglected to take into account the context of their quotations.”

    I thought the context was understood and the plainly-worded statements were rather self-explanatory and unambiguous. For example:

    “Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.’
    Benjamin Franklin”

    I see that as a truism that needs no further explanation.

    “Assuming that you and your ilk are virtuous and the “enemy” is other than virtuous. That is a big leap to make.”

    So I’m a greedy, demon-possessed, devil-worshiping liar, malignant narcissist, pervert, mass-murderer, etc.?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "I was just using “you” as an example; it was rhetorical."

    No, no, no, you are not getting off that easy. You made this statement as a matter of fact. Again, how are you able to know with absolute certainty regarding my apparent “moral incompetence” and “spiritual blindness”? Is it merely due to my challenge of your narrative? Or are you simply flinging something on the wall and hoping it sticks? Please clarify.

    "Absent “virtue” in the general population, you’ll accomplish nothing that will last."

    Except the general population has virtue. It just may not be how YOU define it.

    "What has to happen here to restore “good government” is what happened in Russia: a spiritual revival. Nothing else will suffice."

    First, you mean an exclusive Christian Orthodox revival. Putin helped to usher in the Yarovaya Law (2016), which is notable for its inclusion of new restrictions on evangelism and religious missionary work. Missionary work is defined as: "The activity of a religious association, aimed at disseminating information about its beliefs among people who are not participants (members, followers) in that religious association, with the purpose of involving these people as participants (members, followers). It is carried out directly by religious associations or by citizens and/or legal entities authorised by them, publicly, with the help of the media, the internet or other lawful means." The target of these prescriptions are adherents of churches and faiths OTHER than the Orthodox Church.

    Second, one need not be religious or spiritual to enact reforms in government. It is not mandatory nor a requirement.

    "I’m now globally banned by youtube/google. I am not allowed to make any comments at all on any youtube channel where the subject matter is news, current events, politics, Biblical prophecy, etc."

    That may or may not be true.

    "The fundament of the conflict is spiritual; everything else is a distraction that operates to keep people from realizing it.

    You are entitled to your opinion on this matter.

    "In fact this whole Western “culture” has been trashed/manipulated so as to prevent the people from getting in touch with their spirituality."

    People themselves know how to get in touch with their spirituality, which may be a different process compared to you.

    "Regardless, as I’ve endeavored to point out, absent a spiritual awakening of “the people” no “army” is going to fix what’s wrong with the “West.”"

    That spiritual awakening need not be religious based, nor is it required to make fundamental changes. Furthermore, what specific "evils" are you referring to?

    “Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.’ Benjamin Franklin” I see that as a truism that needs no further explanation.

    The context is what was he specifically referring to. What event prompted him to make this statement? Why did he make it? Are his words indeed a truism?

    Furthermore, would you describe Americans today as virtuous? Why/why not? Would you consider yourself more virtuous than the average American? Why?

    "So I’m a greedy, demon-possessed, devil-worshiping liar, malignant narcissist, pervert, mass-murderer, etc.?"

    That's a strawman on your part. I never directly nor implied it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  62. @Rurik

    Is Trump Assembling a War Cabinet?

    His new national security adviser John Bolton,
     
    you answered your own question Pat

    what Trump and Bolton and co, must begin to understand, is that the mullahs and Putin are not going to be their only adversaries if Trump marches us to war.

    No.

    Rather, Trump is going to have a very significant swath of the US electorate as his new and well-earned enemies as well. Perhaps we won't be fighting in the Persian Gulf, but we'll be fighting his reinvigorated Eternal Wars from the halls of Ivy Towers to the rust belts of the heart land, from where Trump rallied his now recalcitrant former supporters.

    These voices will be more resolute in the condemnation and damnation of Trump and his neocons than they've ever been before, feeling as they must, the bitter lash of betrayal, for all that Trump promised, and for all the aspirations that he's now dashing on the rocks of treason.

    Betrayal is worse, and it stings more than just garden variety evil and crime. So I would expect that the people who supported and voted for Trump- because he said he'd end the catastrophic Eternal Wars, but instead decides to escalate them, will hate Trump with the fury and intensity of a thousand exploding suns, to the n'th power.

    His base will become his singular nemesis, and they'll demand his impeachment with more fervor than ten million Maxine Waters and Chucky Schumers combined.

    It won't just be the Europeans and Asians and Arabs and Persians that will fight Trump to the last tooth and nail, it will be all honorable and decent Americans as well, who Trump will have betrayed in order to cozy to The Fiend, and secure the sanction of the fake news media, that will continue to hate his guts, even as it hails his greatness as a war president.

    the folly, the folly, the terrible, terrible folly

    Interesting comment. I supported (financially) Trump before Iowa and yes, I feel completely betrayed. But my personal reaction is less one of fervent animosity than one of utter indifference to Donald Trump. Let the Dems impeach him and remove him from office, I don’t care. At the present time, I’m inclined to vote for whatever lesbian communist person of color the Dems nominate just to at least know what I’m getting. But others may feel differently about Trump’s action.

    And yes, it is terrible folly.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  63. Beckow says:
    @Sean
    Yes, Trump is preparing for war with Iran. Iran thought it needed nukes, because when push comes to shove Iran cannot count on Russia. Putin won't go up against before the US, he waited until America decided against bombing Assad out of power before sending the Russia expeditionary force to Syria. Iran is not important enough to Russia.

    Trump is preparing for war with Iran

    Everybody is preparing for a war. I don’t know if US will bomb Iran, N Korea, or Fiji. But we know that somebody will be bombed. We have had a few ‘Franz Ferdinand‘ moments, the inevitable next steps are coming.

    Iran is not important enough to Russia

    One can argue that nothing outside of Russia is ‘important enough‘ to Russia. And yet, when your enemy goes to war with a sizeable opponent, why would you not help that opponent? NATO is basically in a non-shooting war with Russia, there would be huge opportunities for mischief if US attacks Iran. The propaganda value would be priceless – from Malaysia to Oxford, there would be brownie points for standing up to the ‘bully‘.

    Iran is roughly 3-4 times bigger than either Iraq or Afghanistan; small parts could be occupied and some areas could be controlled with local separatists. But unless either Turkey or Pakistan join in the attack (unlikely), this would be hopeless. Iraq is an ally of Iran, how would that play out? Billions wasted, equipment and lives lost, insurance rates in Persian Gulf skyrocketing, and Russia gleefully sending arms and laughing all the way to the bank with higher energy prices and less competition.

    It is very stupid. So stupid that it just might happen.

    Read More
    • Replies: @bluedog
    Of course Iran is important to Russia for as Putin said in his speech 'if one of our allies is attacked we will take it the same as an attack on Russia"....
    , @Sean
    The Jewish onslaught on the West would be halted if the West Bank Arabs were expelled. Iran is an obstacle to such a transfer. Destroying Iran is the only way, expensive and difficult as it might well be, it is the last hope.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  64. CalDre says:
    @Corvinus
    "You are making a conclusion about me, based on your “experience” (which, of course, is itself subject to your professed “confirmation and recency bias”). So once again you are proving your utter hypocrisy and lack of intellectual integrity, trying to claim something about me (about whom you know virtually nothing, certainly vastly less than I know about the mass media) based on your flawed generalizations and your illogical, hypocritical accusations."

    You are very predictable here.

    1. You jump to conclusions, say your experiences trump other people's experiences, and that everyone who disagrees with those conclusions are other than intelligent.

    2.You make unsubstantiated claims, are called on to provide specific evidence to support those claims, and then demand other people who call you out to offer proof, even though you are not holding yourself to that same standard.

    Exactly why you are prone to confirmation and recency bias.

    "And my point is the media lies constantly. Their credibility is incredibly low. Indeed, sometimes they tell the truth, or what they believe is the truth (in cases where their agenda is not impacted, or where the truth helps their agenda), but truth is coincidental to their reporting, not the substance of it."

    If the media "sometimes" tells the truth, then your assertion that it lies "almost 100% of reports" is observable false.

    "Again, I have found then when researching the truth of news reports covering topics which is part of an active agenda (e.g., in the Russiagate case, demonizing Russia), I find dishonesty and lies to be extremely high, almost 100% of reports."

    You are overgeneralizing here, which seems to be your calling card. I get it. Any facts or figures or positions than run contrary to your own are dismissed. It's much easier that way.

    "The BBC clip is one example of that but I have done this in a very large number of cases, and consistently, highly consistently, found the Western mass media to be liars and deceivers."

    What you have found out is that you think you believe the media are nearly exclusively liars and deceivers. That is a mighty charge there, one that requires extensive analysis, rather than a mere opinion.

    "First I am far smarter than most people – IQ >> 130."

    Unless you have verification, We. Don't. Care. And the higher the IQ, the more likely a person think they are less prone to these universal thinking mistakes.

    "Second I do a lot of research on what actually happened..."

    What you believe actually happened, which may or may not be accurate.

    "2) Clearly you do, at least from the mass media worship you have displayed in our interactions."

    False characterization. I take in media, vet the sources, compare interpretations and arguments and positions, and develop conclusions.

    "3) You keep asserting the media is to be believed, so I am not assuming it, you keep claiming it."

    No, I am asserting that the media is to be properly scrutinized, but not to the point where a person is conditions to believe it only tells lies and promotes falsehoods. Each story is based on its own merits.

    "I claimed that they don’t care about the truth and their credibility is about zero (what they say may be true, may not, at least with a large category of events, I would not rely on the media for any important decision – now if the local media tells me there is an accident on the interstate and traffic is blocked..."

    Right, YOU personally choose not to rely on the media for any important decisions. That is YOUR opinion. If people make the decision to use the media to guide them to make informed choices, and you claim they are being illogical or unreasonable in this process, then YOU have the burden to show exactly how and why their line of thinking is flawed.

    "OK, probably that is true, if the national media tells me some country that is not a US vassal murdered some citizens, or had “rape rooms”, I would need to have actual proof to believe that, and not some interview of a “witness”"

    There are different types of evidence. You are focusing on only one ("actual proof"), and basing everything on that standard. What constitutes "actual proof" in your mind?

    "You just believe the mass media because you are a gullible sheep.

    "There is no scientific basis to believe the mass media is reporting actual events."

    Another wild generalization here. So, what evidence other than your "experience" are you able to provide to offer particular support for this claim?

    "Any testing will prove they consistently are wrong, lie, distort, deceive, all in material respects."

    Better rethink your hypothesis.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/how-biased-is-the-media-really/2012/04/27/gIQA9jYLmT_story.html?utm_term=.2adb01d4247b

    You are very predictable here.

    1. You jump to conclusions, say your experiences trump other people’s experiences, and that everyone who disagrees with those conclusions are other than intelligent.

    Your predictability is twofold. First, you make accusations which have no basis in fact. Second, you ask me to prove something which is apparent to the most basic observer. So, back at you: prove where I wrote “everyone who disagrees with [my] conclusions are other than intelligent”. You have your work cut out for you. You made a specific claim about a very small set of written, reviewable interactions we had. Come on, prove your point. Or are you a liar, just like the mass media?

    As to my experience trumping others’ experience, that is, of course, human nature. Everyone believes what they believe, not what others believe, except for sheep. Oh yeah, that’s you.

    2.You make unsubstantiated claims, are called on to provide specific evidence to support those claims, and then demand other people who call you out to offer proof, even though you are not holding yourself to that same standard.

    Everyone makes unsubstantiated claims. If you had to prove every single thing you said, you’d hardly make any progress, would you? As I have several times suggested in our interactions, you cannot even prove to me that you are a human being, rather than an AI bot. And that is a relatively simple proof. So, go ahead, you have your work cut out for you. Prove you are a human being. Now. Come on, you can do it, or aren’t you human???

    If the media “sometimes” tells the truth, then your assertion that it lies “almost 100% of reports” is observable false.

    OK, you got me, I engaged in hyperbole on a comment board. Anyone with a reasonable amount of intelligence would have caught that. The fact that you didn’t means (a) you are quite dumb (the AI alpha software? prove it’s not!), or (b) you are being, again, an arse.

    You are overgeneralizing here, which seems to be your calling card. I get it. Any facts or figures or positions than run contrary to your own are dismissed. It’s much easier that way.

    Prove that I ever suggested that “any facts or figures or positions than run contrary to [m] own are dismissed”. Again, we have a very limited set of interactions. The board for your proof is a small one. This should be easy. You have your challenge. Prove that your accusation is true.

    What you have found out is that you think you believe the media are nearly exclusively liars and deceivers. That is a mighty charge there, one that requires extensive analysis, rather than a mere opinion.

    What I have found out is that the media, particularly when it comes to matters that impact their agenda and cannot be simply disproved by the masses, are chronic, habitual liars. They cannot be trusted, at all.

    But frankly there is also a gross amount of incompetence. I have read numerous news reports in the media in which I was involved, and observed the events. In every single case, there was a clear material mis-characterization of something that happened. Like you, for example, mis-charaterizing what I wrote. We will leave it up to others if that is malice or incompetence.

    Unless you have verification, We. Don’t. Care. And the higher the IQ, the more likely a person think they are less prone to these universal thinking mistakes.

    Then why did you ask? You ask a question someone answers it, then you say “We. Don’t. Care.”? That about sums you up, right there, your character and attitude, the type of person – or AI program – you are.

    What you believe actually happened, which may or may not be accurate.

    Another asinine comment, come on, keep them coming. But watch the video, and tell me how honest and forthcoming your mass media liars are. Yeah, the very BBC that one day was calling Yanukovych a tyrant and thug one day for trying to prevent violent protesters from throwing Molotov cocktails against peaceful riot police, said nothing when their side had a violent revolution and then murdered numerous people in the street, including a journalist, for no reason. Even though they had video of it. That pretty much sums up the media you are so adamantly defending with your insults and mis-characterizations. It’s really all quite funny to me, lol.

    False characterization. I take in media, vet the sources, compare interpretations and arguments and positions, and develop conclusions.

    Yeah, sure you do, you keep telling yourself that. Oh, and while you’re at it, prove it. Come on, you made a claim, prove it. You sure got your work cut out for you! LOL. Yeah, back at ya, sheep-AI-man.

    There are different types of evidence. You are focusing on only one (“actual proof”), and basing everything on that standard. What constitutes “actual proof” in your mind?

    When it comes to something like “rape rooms” or murder of civilians – oh, well, that video I linked of the soldiers murdering the civilians in Mariupol in cold blood, which BBC ignored and turned on its head to accuse the civilians of having a “battle” with the soldiers, that video (with the 3 videos I included in it, though I had a number more which I could have used to prove the point) would prove the claim. But, interestingly, the mass media used an excerpt of the video to prove a “lie”. And that is exactly why I don’t trust the mass media, that is their modus operandi.

    “There is no scientific basis to believe the mass media is reporting actual events.”

    Another wild generalization here. So, what evidence other than your “experience” are you able to provide to offer particular support for this claim?

    So, if there is scientific evidence proving the truthfulness of the media, please do provide it. You have your work cut out for you.

    Better rethink your hypothesis.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/how-biased-is-the-media-really/2012/04/27/gIQA9jYLmT_story.html?utm_term=.2adb01d4247b

    Hahahahahaahahahaahaha! Washington Post! Yeah, right, they are such massive, malicious evil liars they have long ago fallen off my interest page. I read a wide array of news sources and WaPo is virtually the worst. Well, I do follow them on my Twitter account, just to mock their constant lies, slanders, war-mongering and other evil deeds, but yeah, they are profoundly and incorrigibly evil, reading them is like reading Goebbels for your news about Jews.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "Your predictability is twofold. First, you make accusations which have no basis in fact. Second, you ask me to prove something which is apparent to the most basic observer."

    More projection on your part.

    "Hahahahahaahahahaahaha! Washington Post! Yeah, right, they are such massive, malicious evil liars they have long ago fallen off my interest page."

    Exactly why you any facts or figures or positions than run contrary to your own are dismissed. YOU conditioned yourself not to read critically to anything YOU believe is totally false. As a result, YOU automatically label those sources as "massive, malicious evil liars". Disprove the contents of the source, not the source itself. You do realize that the Washington Post was reporting on the results of a study that disproved your claim that there is "no scientific basis to believe the mass media is reporting actual events" and lent evidence to the claim that there is "a scientific basis to believe the mass media is reporting events".

    "[The media] cannot be trusted, at all."

    That is astoundingly ignorant to say.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  65. I don’t want war with Iran and I think it is wildly in opposition to US interests to seek out such a war.
    War will come to us, that’s as sure as there is a future. In every imaginable way fighting Iran, unnecessarily weakens us for when that day comes.

    Read More
    • Replies: @NoseytheDuke
    Should war come to the US it will either come from within or as blowback from a conflict that the US initiated.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  66. bluedog says:
    @Beckow

    Trump is preparing for war with Iran
     
    Everybody is preparing for a war. I don't know if US will bomb Iran, N Korea, or Fiji. But we know that somebody will be bombed. We have had a few 'Franz Ferdinand' moments, the inevitable next steps are coming.

    Iran is not important enough to Russia
     
    One can argue that nothing outside of Russia is 'important enough' to Russia. And yet, when your enemy goes to war with a sizeable opponent, why would you not help that opponent? NATO is basically in a non-shooting war with Russia, there would be huge opportunities for mischief if US attacks Iran. The propaganda value would be priceless - from Malaysia to Oxford, there would be brownie points for standing up to the 'bully'.

    Iran is roughly 3-4 times bigger than either Iraq or Afghanistan; small parts could be occupied and some areas could be controlled with local separatists. But unless either Turkey or Pakistan join in the attack (unlikely), this would be hopeless. Iraq is an ally of Iran, how would that play out? Billions wasted, equipment and lives lost, insurance rates in Persian Gulf skyrocketing, and Russia gleefully sending arms and laughing all the way to the bank with higher energy prices and less competition.

    It is very stupid. So stupid that it just might happen.

    Of course Iran is important to Russia for as Putin said in his speech ‘if one of our allies is attacked we will take it the same as an attack on Russia”….

    Read More
    • Replies: @CalDre
    This a hugely important point that posters like peterAUS ignore. In his March 1, 2018 speech to the Russian Parliament, Russian President Putin said (official full English transcript) (emphasis added):

    I should note that our military doctrine says Russia reserves the right to use nuclear weapons solely in response to a nuclear attack, or an attack with other weapons of mass destruction against the country or its allies, or an act of aggression against us with the use of conventional weapons that threaten the very existence of the state.

    ...

    Any use of nuclear weapons against Russia or its allies, weapons of short, medium or any range at all, will be considered as a nuclear attack on this country. Retaliation will be immediate, with all the attendant consequences.
     

    So if the Evil Empire uses a MOAB to take out an Iranian underground nuclear facility, which risks releasing nuclear radiation into the environment, is that an attack with a "weapon of mass destruction" or the use of a "nuclear weapon"? Certainly seems that way to me.
    , @Sean
    The West will have to be prepared to act and escalate as necessary. Russian backed Iran is still less formidable than the Jews. Trump can get the Israel Lobby working for us, he has already shown his colours over the embassy move. The greatest problem will be persuading Israel that the transfers will be worth it. Quite possibly they will decline, but it is worth a try.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  67. CalDre says:
    @bluedog
    Of course Iran is important to Russia for as Putin said in his speech 'if one of our allies is attacked we will take it the same as an attack on Russia"....

    This a hugely important point that posters like peterAUS ignore. In his March 1, 2018 speech to the Russian Parliament, Russian President Putin said (official full English transcript) (emphasis added):

    I should note that our military doctrine says Russia reserves the right to use nuclear weapons solely in response to a nuclear attack, or an attack with other weapons of mass destruction against the country or its allies, or an act of aggression against us with the use of conventional weapons that threaten the very existence of the state.

    Any use of nuclear weapons against Russia or its allies, weapons of short, medium or any range at all, will be considered as a nuclear attack on this country. Retaliation will be immediate, with all the attendant consequences.

    So if the Evil Empire uses a MOAB to take out an Iranian underground nuclear facility, which risks releasing nuclear radiation into the environment, is that an attack with a “weapon of mass destruction” or the use of a “nuclear weapon”? Certainly seems that way to me.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  68. Art says:

    What is Trump, who assured us there would be no more stupid wars, thinking?

    Clearly Trump is thinking Israel. Pat knows that!

    Only mendacious Israel wants us to attack Iran.

    It is beyond obvious that the Jew Deep State is demanding war.

    It is time for anti-war activism!

    Think Peace — Art

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  69. Sean says:
    @dfordoom

    Iran is not important enough to Russia.
     
    If the U.S. destroys Iran then the lunatics in the U.S. who want war with Russia will be completely out of control. Russia would be very very unwise to allow Iran to be crushed.

    The Russians must realise that eventually they're going to have to stand up to the Americans, otherwise it's all over for them. Better to fight the Americans on Iranian soil than on Russian soil.

    Yes, because it is not like Russia has space to retreat into.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CalDre

    Yes, because it is not like Russia has space to retreat into.

     

    Yes, but they do not plan to retreat. They plan to nuke the invaders instead. Much better strategy.

    Of course if US were invaded, Americans would rather retreat from NY, LA, SF, Houston, Miami and D.C. than fight the aggressors. You see, Americans are a friendly folk, they don't like to hurt others.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  70. Sean says:
    @Beckow

    Trump is preparing for war with Iran
     
    Everybody is preparing for a war. I don't know if US will bomb Iran, N Korea, or Fiji. But we know that somebody will be bombed. We have had a few 'Franz Ferdinand' moments, the inevitable next steps are coming.

    Iran is not important enough to Russia
     
    One can argue that nothing outside of Russia is 'important enough' to Russia. And yet, when your enemy goes to war with a sizeable opponent, why would you not help that opponent? NATO is basically in a non-shooting war with Russia, there would be huge opportunities for mischief if US attacks Iran. The propaganda value would be priceless - from Malaysia to Oxford, there would be brownie points for standing up to the 'bully'.

    Iran is roughly 3-4 times bigger than either Iraq or Afghanistan; small parts could be occupied and some areas could be controlled with local separatists. But unless either Turkey or Pakistan join in the attack (unlikely), this would be hopeless. Iraq is an ally of Iran, how would that play out? Billions wasted, equipment and lives lost, insurance rates in Persian Gulf skyrocketing, and Russia gleefully sending arms and laughing all the way to the bank with higher energy prices and less competition.

    It is very stupid. So stupid that it just might happen.

    The Jewish onslaught on the West would be halted if the West Bank Arabs were expelled. Iran is an obstacle to such a transfer. Destroying Iran is the only way, expensive and difficult as it might well be, it is the last hope.

    Read More
    • LOL: L.K
    • Replies: @peterAUS

    The Jewish onslaught on the West would be halted if the West Bank Arabs were expelled. Iran is an obstacle to such a transfer. Destroying Iran is the only way, expensive and difficult as it might well be, it is the last hope.
     
    Whoah.............

    I...m....p...r....e....s.....s....i.....v......e.

    Can't say I've read here more...........interesting.......comment for quite some time.

    Just....whoah...........
    , @CalDre
    LOL. How about we just enforce the "right of return" on all the Jew Zionists/supremacists in D.C., Wall Street, Madison Avenue and Hollywood, send them to the West Bank with some BB guns, and then bomb Israel and its West Bank into the stone age instead? Then if they try to infiltrate or attack the West again we double down on that and make sure none of them can leave their caves for 1,000 years after? /s
    , @NoseytheDuke
    Not heard of the Yinon Plan then?
    , @Beckow
    Why is Iran an obstacle? Or any more of an obstacle than Egypt or Turkey? It is further. The main obstacle is European public opinion, and a war with Iran doesn't help with that.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  71. Sean says:
    @bluedog
    Of course Iran is important to Russia for as Putin said in his speech 'if one of our allies is attacked we will take it the same as an attack on Russia"....

    The West will have to be prepared to act and escalate as necessary. Russian backed Iran is still less formidable than the Jews. Trump can get the Israel Lobby working for us, he has already shown his colours over the embassy move. The greatest problem will be persuading Israel that the transfers will be worth it. Quite possibly they will decline, but it is worth a try.

    Read More
    • Replies: @bluedog
    Perhaps the west might be better off staying home, for the war thing is not their piece of cake ,Korea Nam Afghanistan Iraq is more than proof of that...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  72. Corvinus says:
    @Harold Smith
    "So how are you able to know with absolute certainty regarding my apparent “moral incompetence” and “spiritual blindness”? Is it merely due to my challenge of your narrative? Or are you simply flinging something on the wall and hoping it sticks? Please clarify."

    I was just using "you" as an example; it was rhetorical.

    "The Alt Right, 'true' conservatives, and the deplorables. You have tens of thousands of (white) men ready to head the call."

    I disagree. But let's say you're correct. Let's say there are 100,000 able-bodied, morally competent men willing to die to reestablish "liberty and freedom". That's only about 0.03% of "the people". Where are you going with that? Nowhere. Absent "virtue" in the general population, you'll accomplish nothing that will last.

    What has to happen here to restore "good government" is what happened in Russia: a spiritual revival. Nothing else will suffice.

    http://batr.org/reactionary/040714.html


    "No, you are not a coward, but you certainly are part of the same group of people that not only did nothing to resist the developing tyranny over the last 150 years, but generally actually assisted it."

    If you're referring to the people of the U.S. in general, then yes; if you're referring to me personally, then no, that's not correct.

    Years ago, I lost a high paying position and career in a DOD-related field for taking a moral and legal stand against the "beast" and its atrocities. I've lost "friends" and alienated family because of it. I've spent time and some money bringing pro se lawsuits against the beast, etc., all to no avail. And my latest efforts involve the study of Biblical prophecy and dissemination of the results. Unfortunately, this generally did nothing but further alienate people, and as a result, I'm now globally banned by youtube/google. I am not allowed to make any comments at all on any youtube channel where the subject matter is news, current events, politics, Biblical prophecy, etc.

    "The conflict is political, spiritual, AND financial in nature."

    I disagree. The fundament of the conflict is spiritual; everything else is a distraction that operates to keep people from realizing it. In fact this whole Western "culture" has been trashed/manipulated so as to prevent the people from getting in touch with their spirituality.

    "You have an army at your disposal. Furthermore, it depends upon what you believe entails “liberty and freedom."

    What "army"? Regardless, as I've endeavored to point out, absent a spiritual awakening of "the people" no "army" is going to fix what's wrong with the "West." Evil generally destroys itself. Evil is very similar to an aggressive cancer. There's no reasoning with it; it doesn't stop until it kills the host and itself, and that's where the corrupt "West" is headed.

    "Great, you cited wise men. But you neglected to take into account the context of their quotations."

    I thought the context was understood and the plainly-worded statements were rather self-explanatory and unambiguous. For example:

    "Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.'
    Benjamin Franklin"

    I see that as a truism that needs no further explanation.

    "Assuming that you and your ilk are virtuous and the “enemy” is other than virtuous. That is a big leap to make."

    So I'm a greedy, demon-possessed, devil-worshiping liar, malignant narcissist, pervert, mass-murderer, etc.?

    “I was just using “you” as an example; it was rhetorical.”

    No, no, no, you are not getting off that easy. You made this statement as a matter of fact. Again, how are you able to know with absolute certainty regarding my apparent “moral incompetence” and “spiritual blindness”? Is it merely due to my challenge of your narrative? Or are you simply flinging something on the wall and hoping it sticks? Please clarify.

    “Absent “virtue” in the general population, you’ll accomplish nothing that will last.”

    Except the general population has virtue. It just may not be how YOU define it.

    “What has to happen here to restore “good government” is what happened in Russia: a spiritual revival. Nothing else will suffice.”

    First, you mean an exclusive Christian Orthodox revival. Putin helped to usher in the Yarovaya Law (2016), which is notable for its inclusion of new restrictions on evangelism and religious missionary work. Missionary work is defined as: “The activity of a religious association, aimed at disseminating information about its beliefs among people who are not participants (members, followers) in that religious association, with the purpose of involving these people as participants (members, followers). It is carried out directly by religious associations or by citizens and/or legal entities authorised by them, publicly, with the help of the media, the internet or other lawful means.” The target of these prescriptions are adherents of churches and faiths OTHER than the Orthodox Church.

    Second, one need not be religious or spiritual to enact reforms in government. It is not mandatory nor a requirement.

    “I’m now globally banned by youtube/google. I am not allowed to make any comments at all on any youtube channel where the subject matter is news, current events, politics, Biblical prophecy, etc.”

    That may or may not be true.

    “The fundament of the conflict is spiritual; everything else is a distraction that operates to keep people from realizing it.

    You are entitled to your opinion on this matter.

    “In fact this whole Western “culture” has been trashed/manipulated so as to prevent the people from getting in touch with their spirituality.”

    People themselves know how to get in touch with their spirituality, which may be a different process compared to you.

    “Regardless, as I’ve endeavored to point out, absent a spiritual awakening of “the people” no “army” is going to fix what’s wrong with the “West.””

    That spiritual awakening need not be religious based, nor is it required to make fundamental changes. Furthermore, what specific “evils” are you referring to?

    “Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.’ Benjamin Franklin” I see that as a truism that needs no further explanation.

    The context is what was he specifically referring to. What event prompted him to make this statement? Why did he make it? Are his words indeed a truism?

    Furthermore, would you describe Americans today as virtuous? Why/why not? Would you consider yourself more virtuous than the average American? Why?

    “So I’m a greedy, demon-possessed, devil-worshiping liar, malignant narcissist, pervert, mass-murderer, etc.?”

    That’s a strawman on your part. I never directly nor implied it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Harold Smith
    “No, no, no, you are not getting off that easy. You made this statement as a matter of fact. Again, how are you able to know with absolute certainty regarding my apparent “moral incompetence” and “spiritual blindness”? Is it merely due to my challenge of your narrative? Or are you simply flinging something on the wall and hoping it sticks? Please clarify.”

    Seriously? At issue is the first paragraph in my comment #36. I said:

    “Not quite. Apparently you don’t fully understand the nature of the problem. What does ‘my’ ‘strength’ have to do with ‘your’ moral incompetence and ‘your’ spiritual blindness, for example? All I can do is lead ‘you’ to the water; I can’t make ‘you’ drink.”

    Please examine this statement and note the use of quotation marks wherever I used the words “you” and “your”. I used the quotation marks here to denote that “you” and “your” are not to be taken literally; that is, I was using you as a rhetorical example, just like I said.

    You really don’t know that quotation marks are commonly used to denote “not literally”; or are you just being contrary? More later if I get a chance.

    “Use Quotation Marks to Denote Not Literally
    Quotation marks can also be used to recognize when a word is not being used in its literal meaning.”

    http://www.grammar-monster.com/lessons/quotation_(speech)_marks_meaning_alleged_so-called.htm
    , @Harold Smith
    “'Absent 'virtue' in the general population, you’ll accomplish nothing that will last.'

    Except the general population has virtue."

    I disagree. Perhaps you haven't noticed, but this whole society seems to be collapsing, and this is clearly the result of a lack of "virtue" among the general population, IMO.

    "It just may not be how YOU define it."

    Of course I define "virtue" in the Christian sense, as that is the sense in which the Founders and Framers used the term, and that is the only kind of "virtue" I'm aware of that could theoretically save this country from further self-destruction.

    “'What has to happen here to restore 'good government' is what happened in Russia: a spiritual revival. Nothing else will suffice.'

    First, you mean an exclusive Christian Orthodox revival."

    I mean any Christian spiritual revival where people commit to following what Jesus Christ told us to do. For example:

    От Матфея 22 (Russian Synodal Bible)
    (35) И один из них, законник, искушая Его, спросил, говоря:
    (36) Учитель! какая наибольшая заповедь в законе?
    (37) Иисус сказал ему: возлюби Господа Бога твоего всем сердцем твоим и всею душею твоею и всем разумением твоим:
    (38) сия есть первая и наибольшая заповедь;
    (39) вторая же подобная ей: возлюби ближнего твоего, каксамого себя;
    (40) на сих двух заповедях утверждается весь закон ипророки.

    Matthew 22 (King James Version)
    (35) Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying,
    (36) Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
    (37) Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
    (38) This is the first and great commandment.
    (39) And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
    (40) On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

    There it is; the essence of "virtue". The antidote for the evil that's destroying Western society; the formula for success.

    "Second, one need not be religious or spiritual to enact reforms in government. It is not mandatory nor a requirement."

    Seriously? The problems are not of a "technical" nature that can be fixed with "reforms"; rather, the main problem is that the constitution and the law are nothing but "words on paper", and words on paper won't stop evil, dishonest people from doing evil.

    "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other (John Adams, in a letter to the Massachusetts Militia, 11 Oct. 1798).

    I think it's pointless to continue this discussion.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  73. bluedog says:
    @Sean
    The West will have to be prepared to act and escalate as necessary. Russian backed Iran is still less formidable than the Jews. Trump can get the Israel Lobby working for us, he has already shown his colours over the embassy move. The greatest problem will be persuading Israel that the transfers will be worth it. Quite possibly they will decline, but it is worth a try.

    Perhaps the west might be better off staying home, for the war thing is not their piece of cake ,Korea Nam Afghanistan Iraq is more than proof of that…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  74. peterAUS says:
    @Sean
    The Jewish onslaught on the West would be halted if the West Bank Arabs were expelled. Iran is an obstacle to such a transfer. Destroying Iran is the only way, expensive and difficult as it might well be, it is the last hope.

    The Jewish onslaught on the West would be halted if the West Bank Arabs were expelled. Iran is an obstacle to such a transfer. Destroying Iran is the only way, expensive and difficult as it might well be, it is the last hope.

    Whoah………….

    I…m….p…r….e….s…..s….i…..v……e.

    Can’t say I’ve read here more………..interesting…….comment for quite some time.

    Just….whoah………..

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  75. @Corvinus
    "I was just using “you” as an example; it was rhetorical."

    No, no, no, you are not getting off that easy. You made this statement as a matter of fact. Again, how are you able to know with absolute certainty regarding my apparent “moral incompetence” and “spiritual blindness”? Is it merely due to my challenge of your narrative? Or are you simply flinging something on the wall and hoping it sticks? Please clarify.

    "Absent “virtue” in the general population, you’ll accomplish nothing that will last."

    Except the general population has virtue. It just may not be how YOU define it.

    "What has to happen here to restore “good government” is what happened in Russia: a spiritual revival. Nothing else will suffice."

    First, you mean an exclusive Christian Orthodox revival. Putin helped to usher in the Yarovaya Law (2016), which is notable for its inclusion of new restrictions on evangelism and religious missionary work. Missionary work is defined as: "The activity of a religious association, aimed at disseminating information about its beliefs among people who are not participants (members, followers) in that religious association, with the purpose of involving these people as participants (members, followers). It is carried out directly by religious associations or by citizens and/or legal entities authorised by them, publicly, with the help of the media, the internet or other lawful means." The target of these prescriptions are adherents of churches and faiths OTHER than the Orthodox Church.

    Second, one need not be religious or spiritual to enact reforms in government. It is not mandatory nor a requirement.

    "I’m now globally banned by youtube/google. I am not allowed to make any comments at all on any youtube channel where the subject matter is news, current events, politics, Biblical prophecy, etc."

    That may or may not be true.

    "The fundament of the conflict is spiritual; everything else is a distraction that operates to keep people from realizing it.

    You are entitled to your opinion on this matter.

    "In fact this whole Western “culture” has been trashed/manipulated so as to prevent the people from getting in touch with their spirituality."

    People themselves know how to get in touch with their spirituality, which may be a different process compared to you.

    "Regardless, as I’ve endeavored to point out, absent a spiritual awakening of “the people” no “army” is going to fix what’s wrong with the “West.”"

    That spiritual awakening need not be religious based, nor is it required to make fundamental changes. Furthermore, what specific "evils" are you referring to?

    “Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.’ Benjamin Franklin” I see that as a truism that needs no further explanation.

    The context is what was he specifically referring to. What event prompted him to make this statement? Why did he make it? Are his words indeed a truism?

    Furthermore, would you describe Americans today as virtuous? Why/why not? Would you consider yourself more virtuous than the average American? Why?

    "So I’m a greedy, demon-possessed, devil-worshiping liar, malignant narcissist, pervert, mass-murderer, etc.?"

    That's a strawman on your part. I never directly nor implied it.

    “No, no, no, you are not getting off that easy. You made this statement as a matter of fact. Again, how are you able to know with absolute certainty regarding my apparent “moral incompetence” and “spiritual blindness”? Is it merely due to my challenge of your narrative? Or are you simply flinging something on the wall and hoping it sticks? Please clarify.”

    Seriously? At issue is the first paragraph in my comment #36. I said:

    “Not quite. Apparently you don’t fully understand the nature of the problem. What does ‘my’ ‘strength’ have to do with ‘your’ moral incompetence and ‘your’ spiritual blindness, for example? All I can do is lead ‘you’ to the water; I can’t make ‘you’ drink.”

    Please examine this statement and note the use of quotation marks wherever I used the words “you” and “your”. I used the quotation marks here to denote that “you” and “your” are not to be taken literally; that is, I was using you as a rhetorical example, just like I said.

    You really don’t know that quotation marks are commonly used to denote “not literally”; or are you just being contrary? More later if I get a chance.

    “Use Quotation Marks to Denote Not Literally
    Quotation marks can also be used to recognize when a word is not being used in its literal meaning.”

    http://www.grammar-monster.com/lessons/quotation_(speech)_marks_meaning_alleged_so-called.htm

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    No, I didn't take it that way. But the questions still stand.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  76. CalDre says:
    @Sean
    The Jewish onslaught on the West would be halted if the West Bank Arabs were expelled. Iran is an obstacle to such a transfer. Destroying Iran is the only way, expensive and difficult as it might well be, it is the last hope.

    LOL. How about we just enforce the “right of return” on all the Jew Zionists/supremacists in D.C., Wall Street, Madison Avenue and Hollywood, send them to the West Bank with some BB guns, and then bomb Israel and its West Bank into the stone age instead? Then if they try to infiltrate or attack the West again we double down on that and make sure none of them can leave their caves for 1,000 years after? /s

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  77. @Corvinus
    "Which will be used to usher in the global dictatorship the ((global oligarchs)) have been thirsting after for centuries."

    Assuming this to be true, what are you personally doing to stop it? Are you willing to organize an outright rebellion against the banksters and Zionists and SAVE "your" nation from destruction, or are you going to just tap away at your keyboard the same tripe without lifting a finger to keep your progeny from becoming a slave just like yourself?

    Assuming this to be true, what are you personally doing to stop it?

    What are you doing, Corvinus?
    Offering bibles at discount for the duration?

    What do you suggest?

    Tar & feathers?
    Lynchings from lampposts?
    Maybe a well-funded rally featuring pubescent children who insist that only those who kill brown people Over There be permitted to use WMD?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "What are you doing, Corvinus?"

    Actually, it's about YOU, not about me. I'm not the one touting how the sky is falling and we are heading into oblivion because of the Jews.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  78. “After his smashing victory in Desert Storm, Bush I was denied a second term. ”

    Even when he’s going along fine, Pat can’t restrain himself from saying something retarded. It seems like he has set a rule for himself to include at least one totally retarded statement in each article.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  79. @SimplePseudonymicHandle
    I don't want war with Iran and I think it is wildly in opposition to US interests to seek out such a war.
    War will come to us, that's as sure as there is a future. In every imaginable way fighting Iran, unnecessarily weakens us for when that day comes.

    Should war come to the US it will either come from within or as blowback from a conflict that the US initiated.

    Read More
    • Agree: bluedog
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  80. @Sean
    The Jewish onslaught on the West would be halted if the West Bank Arabs were expelled. Iran is an obstacle to such a transfer. Destroying Iran is the only way, expensive and difficult as it might well be, it is the last hope.

    Not heard of the Yinon Plan then?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  81. Beckow says:
    @Sean
    The Jewish onslaught on the West would be halted if the West Bank Arabs were expelled. Iran is an obstacle to such a transfer. Destroying Iran is the only way, expensive and difficult as it might well be, it is the last hope.

    Why is Iran an obstacle? Or any more of an obstacle than Egypt or Turkey? It is further. The main obstacle is European public opinion, and a war with Iran doesn’t help with that.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sean
    Every attempt at fighting Israel has ended in severe defeats for the Arabs, and those helping them. Carter neutralized Egypt, they are paid off and want to keep getting US money, the generals are not going to go on jihad and energise homegrown Islamic radicals after all the trouble they have had suppressing them. Turkey is a former Ottoman oppressor of the Middle East, and not only widely hated in Arab countries but the first Muslim majority country to recognize the State of Israel. Crucially, the army in Turkey (and Egypt) want access to American military technology at bargain basement prices. Turkey is not contiguous with Iran, and if they attack Israel or the US their armed forces will smashed and never rebuilt leaving them isolated and at the mercy of the Kurds and Russians.

    The idea that a future Palestinian state would adhere to being a “demilitarized state” is totally unrealistic, especially if we consider the history and nature of Arab regimes. Louis Rene Beres, Emeritus Professor of International Law, has pointed out that even “If the government of a fully sovereign Palestinian state were in fact willing to consider itself bound by some pre-state agreement to demilitarize, in these improbable circumstances, the new Palestinian Arab government could likely identify ample pretext and opportunity to invoke lawful ‘treaty’ termination.
     
    Europe wants a(nother) Palestinian state (in addition to Jordan). That is the official policy of the US too. In his book on Israel, Carter said back in the mid seventies, before Begin started mass settlement building, he left Israel confident, as everybody was, that land would be traded for peace. The settlement building had already taken most of the land a generation later by the time Barak offered a deal, and the Palestinians turned it down, thinking that the West would eventually force Israel to give them something better. Many more settlement have been built since.

    Who cares about Europe? The clear aspiration of the US establishment is for a settlement and a new Palestinian state. Crucially, Israel is having to pretend that all is the same as in the seventies with land on offer, but they are not serious about giving anything like as much land as Palestinians would settle for. If things go on as they are, the Palestinians will eventually win. Trump has already signaled the tenor and submarining of his policy by moving the US embassy to Jerusalem, and exposed Europe as irrelevant.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  82. @Corvinus
    "I was just using “you” as an example; it was rhetorical."

    No, no, no, you are not getting off that easy. You made this statement as a matter of fact. Again, how are you able to know with absolute certainty regarding my apparent “moral incompetence” and “spiritual blindness”? Is it merely due to my challenge of your narrative? Or are you simply flinging something on the wall and hoping it sticks? Please clarify.

    "Absent “virtue” in the general population, you’ll accomplish nothing that will last."

    Except the general population has virtue. It just may not be how YOU define it.

    "What has to happen here to restore “good government” is what happened in Russia: a spiritual revival. Nothing else will suffice."

    First, you mean an exclusive Christian Orthodox revival. Putin helped to usher in the Yarovaya Law (2016), which is notable for its inclusion of new restrictions on evangelism and religious missionary work. Missionary work is defined as: "The activity of a religious association, aimed at disseminating information about its beliefs among people who are not participants (members, followers) in that religious association, with the purpose of involving these people as participants (members, followers). It is carried out directly by religious associations or by citizens and/or legal entities authorised by them, publicly, with the help of the media, the internet or other lawful means." The target of these prescriptions are adherents of churches and faiths OTHER than the Orthodox Church.

    Second, one need not be religious or spiritual to enact reforms in government. It is not mandatory nor a requirement.

    "I’m now globally banned by youtube/google. I am not allowed to make any comments at all on any youtube channel where the subject matter is news, current events, politics, Biblical prophecy, etc."

    That may or may not be true.

    "The fundament of the conflict is spiritual; everything else is a distraction that operates to keep people from realizing it.

    You are entitled to your opinion on this matter.

    "In fact this whole Western “culture” has been trashed/manipulated so as to prevent the people from getting in touch with their spirituality."

    People themselves know how to get in touch with their spirituality, which may be a different process compared to you.

    "Regardless, as I’ve endeavored to point out, absent a spiritual awakening of “the people” no “army” is going to fix what’s wrong with the “West.”"

    That spiritual awakening need not be religious based, nor is it required to make fundamental changes. Furthermore, what specific "evils" are you referring to?

    “Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.’ Benjamin Franklin” I see that as a truism that needs no further explanation.

    The context is what was he specifically referring to. What event prompted him to make this statement? Why did he make it? Are his words indeed a truism?

    Furthermore, would you describe Americans today as virtuous? Why/why not? Would you consider yourself more virtuous than the average American? Why?

    "So I’m a greedy, demon-possessed, devil-worshiping liar, malignant narcissist, pervert, mass-murderer, etc.?"

    That's a strawman on your part. I never directly nor implied it.

    “’Absent ‘virtue’ in the general population, you’ll accomplish nothing that will last.’

    Except the general population has virtue.”

    I disagree. Perhaps you haven’t noticed, but this whole society seems to be collapsing, and this is clearly the result of a lack of “virtue” among the general population, IMO.

    “It just may not be how YOU define it.”

    Of course I define “virtue” in the Christian sense, as that is the sense in which the Founders and Framers used the term, and that is the only kind of “virtue” I’m aware of that could theoretically save this country from further self-destruction.

    “’What has to happen here to restore ‘good government’ is what happened in Russia: a spiritual revival. Nothing else will suffice.’

    First, you mean an exclusive Christian Orthodox revival.”

    I mean any Christian spiritual revival where people commit to following what Jesus Christ told us to do. For example:

    От Матфея 22 (Russian Synodal Bible)
    (35) И один из них, законник, искушая Его, спросил, говоря:
    (36) Учитель! какая наибольшая заповедь в законе?
    (37) Иисус сказал ему: возлюби Господа Бога твоего всем сердцем твоим и всею душею твоею и всем разумением твоим:
    (38) сия есть первая и наибольшая заповедь;
    (39) вторая же подобная ей: возлюби ближнего твоего, каксамого себя;
    (40) на сих двух заповедях утверждается весь закон ипророки.

    Matthew 22 (King James Version)
    (35) Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying,
    (36) Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
    (37) Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
    (38) This is the first and great commandment.
    (39) And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
    (40) On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

    There it is; the essence of “virtue”. The antidote for the evil that’s destroying Western society; the formula for success.

    “Second, one need not be religious or spiritual to enact reforms in government. It is not mandatory nor a requirement.”

    Seriously? The problems are not of a “technical” nature that can be fixed with “reforms”; rather, the main problem is that the constitution and the law are nothing but “words on paper”, and words on paper won’t stop evil, dishonest people from doing evil.

    “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other (John Adams, in a letter to the Massachusetts Militia, 11 Oct. 1798).

    I think it’s pointless to continue this discussion.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "I disagree. Perhaps you haven’t noticed, but this whole society seems to be collapsing..."

    At various points in time in our nation's history, this claim has been made, whether it be in the 1850's with the bitter conflict between North and South (which led to war), to the 1890's with the influx of undesirable Southern/Eastern Europeans, to the 1960's with the removal of Jim Crow laws in the South. While certainly there major issues that are contentious, with sides being taken, I am not going down the rabbit hole of Chicken Little. It's a broken record played by the Coalition of the Fringes Left and the Coalition of the Fringes Right.

    "and this is clearly the result of a lack of “virtue” among the general population, IMO."

    A lack of the type of virtue you espouse, in your opinion. But how do you know for certain people lack this virtue?

    "Of course I define “virtue” in the Christian sense, as that is the sense in which the Founders and Framers used the term, and that is the only kind of “virtue” I’m aware of that could theoretically save this country from further self-destruction."

    Christianity was certainly one of several influences on America’s Founders. But clearly there were other overlapping, intellectual influences in the era. They were driven by English political-legal traditions, their own political experiences, their own faiths, and were motivated by varying degrees by personal, class, or State pursuits. However, this specific "virtue", while noble, is NOT a requirement for American citizens today to be "saved", nor must it be exclusively invoked. Our society consists of ethical and moral people, each of whom has that an inner spiritual compass.

    "I mean any Christian spiritual revival where people commit to following what Jesus Christ told us to do..."

    Except it is NOT "any Christian spiritual revival", it's only Orthodox Christianity. Should not other religious groups in Russia like Jehovah's Witnesses be part of this movement, and not persecuted and cast aside?

    "There it is; the essence of “virtue”. The antidote for the evil that’s destroying Western society; the formula for success."

    Right, from YOUR Christian perspective. But there are Americans who embrace that similar attitude, or who hold different points of view. What you seem to be advocating is ONE, and ONLY ONE, solution. That is noble on your part.

    "The problems are not of a “technical” nature that can be fixed with “reforms”:

    In your opinion.

    "Rather, the main problem is that the constitution and the law are nothing but “words on paper”, and words on paper won’t stop evil, dishonest people from doing evil."

    Indeed, words on paper does not stop evil, it takes action by people. So what people? Against what evil? Against who is being dishonest? There is a tremendous amount of vagueness here.

    "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People."

    OK, who specifically constitutes this "moral and religious People"? Only a certain group of people? People from different walks of life? Are Jews included or excluded? What about atheists? What about "people of color"? There needs to be clarity here, especially today given our climate.
    , @NoseytheDuke
    Sorry Harold, I regret not mentioning this to you earlier, but you may as well bang your head against a rock until blood spills over the top of your boots than "debate" with Convolutus or whatever it calls itself. Your comments are generally very worthwhile so I hate to see your time wasted. Cheers.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  83. Corvinus says:
    @Harold Smith
    “No, no, no, you are not getting off that easy. You made this statement as a matter of fact. Again, how are you able to know with absolute certainty regarding my apparent “moral incompetence” and “spiritual blindness”? Is it merely due to my challenge of your narrative? Or are you simply flinging something on the wall and hoping it sticks? Please clarify.”

    Seriously? At issue is the first paragraph in my comment #36. I said:

    “Not quite. Apparently you don’t fully understand the nature of the problem. What does ‘my’ ‘strength’ have to do with ‘your’ moral incompetence and ‘your’ spiritual blindness, for example? All I can do is lead ‘you’ to the water; I can’t make ‘you’ drink.”

    Please examine this statement and note the use of quotation marks wherever I used the words “you” and “your”. I used the quotation marks here to denote that “you” and “your” are not to be taken literally; that is, I was using you as a rhetorical example, just like I said.

    You really don’t know that quotation marks are commonly used to denote “not literally”; or are you just being contrary? More later if I get a chance.

    “Use Quotation Marks to Denote Not Literally
    Quotation marks can also be used to recognize when a word is not being used in its literal meaning.”

    http://www.grammar-monster.com/lessons/quotation_(speech)_marks_meaning_alleged_so-called.htm

    No, I didn’t take it that way. But the questions still stand.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  84. Corvinus says:
    @Harold Smith
    “'Absent 'virtue' in the general population, you’ll accomplish nothing that will last.'

    Except the general population has virtue."

    I disagree. Perhaps you haven't noticed, but this whole society seems to be collapsing, and this is clearly the result of a lack of "virtue" among the general population, IMO.

    "It just may not be how YOU define it."

    Of course I define "virtue" in the Christian sense, as that is the sense in which the Founders and Framers used the term, and that is the only kind of "virtue" I'm aware of that could theoretically save this country from further self-destruction.

    “'What has to happen here to restore 'good government' is what happened in Russia: a spiritual revival. Nothing else will suffice.'

    First, you mean an exclusive Christian Orthodox revival."

    I mean any Christian spiritual revival where people commit to following what Jesus Christ told us to do. For example:

    От Матфея 22 (Russian Synodal Bible)
    (35) И один из них, законник, искушая Его, спросил, говоря:
    (36) Учитель! какая наибольшая заповедь в законе?
    (37) Иисус сказал ему: возлюби Господа Бога твоего всем сердцем твоим и всею душею твоею и всем разумением твоим:
    (38) сия есть первая и наибольшая заповедь;
    (39) вторая же подобная ей: возлюби ближнего твоего, каксамого себя;
    (40) на сих двух заповедях утверждается весь закон ипророки.

    Matthew 22 (King James Version)
    (35) Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying,
    (36) Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
    (37) Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
    (38) This is the first and great commandment.
    (39) And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
    (40) On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

    There it is; the essence of "virtue". The antidote for the evil that's destroying Western society; the formula for success.

    "Second, one need not be religious or spiritual to enact reforms in government. It is not mandatory nor a requirement."

    Seriously? The problems are not of a "technical" nature that can be fixed with "reforms"; rather, the main problem is that the constitution and the law are nothing but "words on paper", and words on paper won't stop evil, dishonest people from doing evil.

    "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other (John Adams, in a letter to the Massachusetts Militia, 11 Oct. 1798).

    I think it's pointless to continue this discussion.

    “I disagree. Perhaps you haven’t noticed, but this whole society seems to be collapsing…”

    At various points in time in our nation’s history, this claim has been made, whether it be in the 1850′s with the bitter conflict between North and South (which led to war), to the 1890′s with the influx of undesirable Southern/Eastern Europeans, to the 1960′s with the removal of Jim Crow laws in the South. While certainly there major issues that are contentious, with sides being taken, I am not going down the rabbit hole of Chicken Little. It’s a broken record played by the Coalition of the Fringes Left and the Coalition of the Fringes Right.

    “and this is clearly the result of a lack of “virtue” among the general population, IMO.”

    A lack of the type of virtue you espouse, in your opinion. But how do you know for certain people lack this virtue?

    “Of course I define “virtue” in the Christian sense, as that is the sense in which the Founders and Framers used the term, and that is the only kind of “virtue” I’m aware of that could theoretically save this country from further self-destruction.”

    Christianity was certainly one of several influences on America’s Founders. But clearly there were other overlapping, intellectual influences in the era. They were driven by English political-legal traditions, their own political experiences, their own faiths, and were motivated by varying degrees by personal, class, or State pursuits. However, this specific “virtue”, while noble, is NOT a requirement for American citizens today to be “saved”, nor must it be exclusively invoked. Our society consists of ethical and moral people, each of whom has that an inner spiritual compass.

    “I mean any Christian spiritual revival where people commit to following what Jesus Christ told us to do…”

    Except it is NOT “any Christian spiritual revival”, it’s only Orthodox Christianity. Should not other religious groups in Russia like Jehovah’s Witnesses be part of this movement, and not persecuted and cast aside?

    “There it is; the essence of “virtue”. The antidote for the evil that’s destroying Western society; the formula for success.”

    Right, from YOUR Christian perspective. But there are Americans who embrace that similar attitude, or who hold different points of view. What you seem to be advocating is ONE, and ONLY ONE, solution. That is noble on your part.

    “The problems are not of a “technical” nature that can be fixed with “reforms”:

    In your opinion.

    “Rather, the main problem is that the constitution and the law are nothing but “words on paper”, and words on paper won’t stop evil, dishonest people from doing evil.”

    Indeed, words on paper does not stop evil, it takes action by people. So what people? Against what evil? Against who is being dishonest? There is a tremendous amount of vagueness here.

    “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People.”

    OK, who specifically constitutes this “moral and religious People”? Only a certain group of people? People from different walks of life? Are Jews included or excluded? What about atheists? What about “people of color”? There needs to be clarity here, especially today given our climate.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Harold Smith
    "'I disagree. Perhaps you haven’t noticed, but this whole society seems to be collapsing…'

    At various points in time in our nation’s history, this claim has been made, whether it be in the 1850′s with the bitter conflict between North and South (which led to war), to the 1890′s with the influx of undesirable Southern/Eastern Europeans, to the 1960′s with the removal of Jim Crow laws in the South. While certainly there major issues that are contentious, with sides being taken, I am not going down the rabbit hole of Chicken Little. It’s a broken record played by the Coalition of the Fringes Left and the Coalition of the Fringes Right."

    Any honest person with eyes to see knows that the U.S. is going down. The evidence is abundant: property taxation is out of control, health care costs are out of control, drug use is out of control, retail stores are shutting down/going bankrupt, etc...the rot is everywhere.

    Of course you will disagree with everything I say, but one generally accepted indicator of the health of a society is life expectancy, and U.S. life expectancy is going down:

    '"Notable among poor-performing countries is the U.S.A., whose life expectancy at birth is already lower than most other high-income countries, and is projected to fall further behind such that its 2030 life expectancy at birth might be similar to the Czech Republic for men, and Croatia and Mexico for women,' says the United Kingdom's medical journal "Lancet," which published the study.

    The research was undertaken by the World Health Organization and Imperial College London, CNBC News reports. The study analyzed life expectancy rates of 35 developed countries. CNBC reports that "the U.S. was found to be on course for the lowest average life expectancy levels of all the rich countries worldwide."

    https://www.usnews.com/news/health-care-news/articles/2017-02-22/us-life-expectancy-expected-to-be-on-par-with-mexico-czech-republic-in-2030

    "Christianity was certainly one of several influences on America’s Founders. But clearly there were other overlapping, intellectual influences in the era. They were driven by English political-legal traditions, their own political experiences, their own faiths, and were motivated by varying degrees by personal, class, or State pursuits. However, this specific “virtue”, while noble, is NOT a requirement for American citizens today to be “saved”, nor must it be exclusively invoked. Our society consists of ethical and moral people, each of whom has that an inner spiritual compass."

    Your obtusity is breathtaking; you haven't the slightest clue what you're hand-waving about. I can't write a book here so I'll try to be brief. First, Christian virtue is not some kind of recondite, irrelevant, religious dogma, but common sense. You put God (goodness, truth, love, etc.) first and you treat your neighbor the way you want to be treated. Simple.

    Second, the Founders and the Framers understood that "liberty and freedom" come from God, the creator.

    "The right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in the power of man to alienate this gift and voluntarily become a slave ... These may be best understood by reading and carefully studying the institutes of the great Law Giver and Head of the Christian Church, which are to be found clearly written and promulgated in the New Testament."

    - Samuel Adams (1722-1803), American revolutionary and Founding Father, in The Rights of the Colonists, November 20, 1772.

    https://history.hanover.edu/texts/adamss.html

    Since men have inalienable God-given natural rights, government power had to be limited; thus the Constitution. But in order for government to function, they had to give it some "supernatural" power. And there's the rub. There's where the evil can seep in and wreak havoc. This is why John Adams said:

    "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

    All of this is to be contrasted with Satanic communism, for example, where "the state" = "god", and "the people" have no natural right to exist. As far as our de facto communist "government" is concerned, only "the state" has a right to exist, and "the people", to the extent they're allowed by the state to exist in the first place, exist merely to serve their communist masters, i.e., "the state."

    I think further discussion is pointless.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  85. Corvinus says:
    @SolontoCroesus

    Assuming this to be true, what are you personally doing to stop it?
     
    What are you doing, Corvinus?
    Offering bibles at discount for the duration?

    What do you suggest?

    Tar & feathers?
    Lynchings from lampposts?
    Maybe a well-funded rally featuring pubescent children who insist that only those who kill brown people Over There be permitted to use WMD?

    “What are you doing, Corvinus?”

    Actually, it’s about YOU, not about me. I’m not the one touting how the sky is falling and we are heading into oblivion because of the Jews.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  86. CalDre says:
    @Sean
    Yes, because it is not like Russia has space to retreat into.

    Yes, because it is not like Russia has space to retreat into.

    Yes, but they do not plan to retreat. They plan to nuke the invaders instead. Much better strategy.

    Of course if US were invaded, Americans would rather retreat from NY, LA, SF, Houston, Miami and D.C. than fight the aggressors. You see, Americans are a friendly folk, they don’t like to hurt others.

    Read More
    • LOL: bluedog
    • Replies: @Sean
    The US would withdraw if invaded by, for instance, a future mega power China. Why fight a more powerful opponent instead of using space. Only if a conventional attack was destroying a large proportion of unlaunched weapons and removing the nuclear deterrent (against nuclear attack) would there be any temptation to use nukes in response to conventional attack. Historically Russia had had the space to win against more capable peoples eventually, and as that is their strength I would expect them to use it early and keep on using it.

    Anyway, why on Earth would anyone invade Russia, it has nothing the US or Europe wants. The main reason that the Soviets were almost beaten in 1941 was that Stalin had his forces stand and fight too far forward instead of withdrawing. The US would withdraw if invaded by a future mega power such as China. So would Russia although they have a vast number of tactical nukes probably intended for threatening China with.

    The Soviet Union never had any plan to attack Europe, but they had huge conventional forces, as did the US. Both sides said they planned to nuke any invasion, but talk is cheap. If you look at their actions, the superpowers were both preparing to use nukes in retaliation to a nuclear attack, but fight conventional attack conventionally. This trip wire across the border stuff and nuke any conventional attack imediately stuff was was American propaganda, and intended to obviate the need to match the Soviets in conventional weapons, which are very expensive.

    , @RadicalCenter
    There aren't many Americans in LA, SF, NYC, Houston, and Miami. We already retreated.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  87. @Harold Smith
    “'Absent 'virtue' in the general population, you’ll accomplish nothing that will last.'

    Except the general population has virtue."

    I disagree. Perhaps you haven't noticed, but this whole society seems to be collapsing, and this is clearly the result of a lack of "virtue" among the general population, IMO.

    "It just may not be how YOU define it."

    Of course I define "virtue" in the Christian sense, as that is the sense in which the Founders and Framers used the term, and that is the only kind of "virtue" I'm aware of that could theoretically save this country from further self-destruction.

    “'What has to happen here to restore 'good government' is what happened in Russia: a spiritual revival. Nothing else will suffice.'

    First, you mean an exclusive Christian Orthodox revival."

    I mean any Christian spiritual revival where people commit to following what Jesus Christ told us to do. For example:

    От Матфея 22 (Russian Synodal Bible)
    (35) И один из них, законник, искушая Его, спросил, говоря:
    (36) Учитель! какая наибольшая заповедь в законе?
    (37) Иисус сказал ему: возлюби Господа Бога твоего всем сердцем твоим и всею душею твоею и всем разумением твоим:
    (38) сия есть первая и наибольшая заповедь;
    (39) вторая же подобная ей: возлюби ближнего твоего, каксамого себя;
    (40) на сих двух заповедях утверждается весь закон ипророки.

    Matthew 22 (King James Version)
    (35) Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying,
    (36) Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
    (37) Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
    (38) This is the first and great commandment.
    (39) And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
    (40) On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

    There it is; the essence of "virtue". The antidote for the evil that's destroying Western society; the formula for success.

    "Second, one need not be religious or spiritual to enact reforms in government. It is not mandatory nor a requirement."

    Seriously? The problems are not of a "technical" nature that can be fixed with "reforms"; rather, the main problem is that the constitution and the law are nothing but "words on paper", and words on paper won't stop evil, dishonest people from doing evil.

    "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other (John Adams, in a letter to the Massachusetts Militia, 11 Oct. 1798).

    I think it's pointless to continue this discussion.

    Sorry Harold, I regret not mentioning this to you earlier, but you may as well bang your head against a rock until blood spills over the top of your boots than “debate” with Convolutus or whatever it calls itself. Your comments are generally very worthwhile so I hate to see your time wasted. Cheers.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Harold Smith
    Thanks for the thought. I was wondering why I have such a headache lately :)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  88. Richard L says:

    Increased destabilisation of the Middle East would threaten oil supplies for everyone but the USA (and Russia). I think you need to look no further than that.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  89. Sean says:
    @Beckow
    Why is Iran an obstacle? Or any more of an obstacle than Egypt or Turkey? It is further. The main obstacle is European public opinion, and a war with Iran doesn't help with that.

    Every attempt at fighting Israel has ended in severe defeats for the Arabs, and those helping them. Carter neutralized Egypt, they are paid off and want to keep getting US money, the generals are not going to go on jihad and energise homegrown Islamic radicals after all the trouble they have had suppressing them. Turkey is a former Ottoman oppressor of the Middle East, and not only widely hated in Arab countries but the first Muslim majority country to recognize the State of Israel. Crucially, the army in Turkey (and Egypt) want access to American military technology at bargain basement prices. Turkey is not contiguous with Iran, and if they attack Israel or the US their armed forces will smashed and never rebuilt leaving them isolated and at the mercy of the Kurds and Russians.

    The idea that a future Palestinian state would adhere to being a “demilitarized state” is totally unrealistic, especially if we consider the history and nature of Arab regimes. Louis Rene Beres, Emeritus Professor of International Law, has pointed out that even “If the government of a fully sovereign Palestinian state were in fact willing to consider itself bound by some pre-state agreement to demilitarize, in these improbable circumstances, the new Palestinian Arab government could likely identify ample pretext and opportunity to invoke lawful ‘treaty’ termination.

    Europe wants a(nother) Palestinian state (in addition to Jordan). That is the official policy of the US too. In his book on Israel, Carter said back in the mid seventies, before Begin started mass settlement building, he left Israel confident, as everybody was, that land would be traded for peace. The settlement building had already taken most of the land a generation later by the time Barak offered a deal, and the Palestinians turned it down, thinking that the West would eventually force Israel to give them something better. Many more settlement have been built since.

    Who cares about Europe? The clear aspiration of the US establishment is for a settlement and a new Palestinian state. Crucially, Israel is having to pretend that all is the same as in the seventies with land on offer, but they are not serious about giving anything like as much land as Palestinians would settle for. If things go on as they are, the Palestinians will eventually win. Trump has already signaled the tenor and submarining of his policy by moving the US embassy to Jerusalem, and exposed Europe as irrelevant.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Twodees Partain
    "Every attempt at fighting Israel has ended in severe defeats for the Arabs, and those helping them."

    That's like saying that a toy poodle has consistently beaten up a chihuahua in those cases where the poodle's human owner intervened to help. I think you've been taking retarded comments 101 under professor Buchanan.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  90. @Corvinus
    "I disagree. Perhaps you haven’t noticed, but this whole society seems to be collapsing..."

    At various points in time in our nation's history, this claim has been made, whether it be in the 1850's with the bitter conflict between North and South (which led to war), to the 1890's with the influx of undesirable Southern/Eastern Europeans, to the 1960's with the removal of Jim Crow laws in the South. While certainly there major issues that are contentious, with sides being taken, I am not going down the rabbit hole of Chicken Little. It's a broken record played by the Coalition of the Fringes Left and the Coalition of the Fringes Right.

    "and this is clearly the result of a lack of “virtue” among the general population, IMO."

    A lack of the type of virtue you espouse, in your opinion. But how do you know for certain people lack this virtue?

    "Of course I define “virtue” in the Christian sense, as that is the sense in which the Founders and Framers used the term, and that is the only kind of “virtue” I’m aware of that could theoretically save this country from further self-destruction."

    Christianity was certainly one of several influences on America’s Founders. But clearly there were other overlapping, intellectual influences in the era. They were driven by English political-legal traditions, their own political experiences, their own faiths, and were motivated by varying degrees by personal, class, or State pursuits. However, this specific "virtue", while noble, is NOT a requirement for American citizens today to be "saved", nor must it be exclusively invoked. Our society consists of ethical and moral people, each of whom has that an inner spiritual compass.

    "I mean any Christian spiritual revival where people commit to following what Jesus Christ told us to do..."

    Except it is NOT "any Christian spiritual revival", it's only Orthodox Christianity. Should not other religious groups in Russia like Jehovah's Witnesses be part of this movement, and not persecuted and cast aside?

    "There it is; the essence of “virtue”. The antidote for the evil that’s destroying Western society; the formula for success."

    Right, from YOUR Christian perspective. But there are Americans who embrace that similar attitude, or who hold different points of view. What you seem to be advocating is ONE, and ONLY ONE, solution. That is noble on your part.

    "The problems are not of a “technical” nature that can be fixed with “reforms”:

    In your opinion.

    "Rather, the main problem is that the constitution and the law are nothing but “words on paper”, and words on paper won’t stop evil, dishonest people from doing evil."

    Indeed, words on paper does not stop evil, it takes action by people. So what people? Against what evil? Against who is being dishonest? There is a tremendous amount of vagueness here.

    "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People."

    OK, who specifically constitutes this "moral and religious People"? Only a certain group of people? People from different walks of life? Are Jews included or excluded? What about atheists? What about "people of color"? There needs to be clarity here, especially today given our climate.

    “‘I disagree. Perhaps you haven’t noticed, but this whole society seems to be collapsing…’

    At various points in time in our nation’s history, this claim has been made, whether it be in the 1850′s with the bitter conflict between North and South (which led to war), to the 1890′s with the influx of undesirable Southern/Eastern Europeans, to the 1960′s with the removal of Jim Crow laws in the South. While certainly there major issues that are contentious, with sides being taken, I am not going down the rabbit hole of Chicken Little. It’s a broken record played by the Coalition of the Fringes Left and the Coalition of the Fringes Right.”

    Any honest person with eyes to see knows that the U.S. is going down. The evidence is abundant: property taxation is out of control, health care costs are out of control, drug use is out of control, retail stores are shutting down/going bankrupt, etc…the rot is everywhere.

    Of course you will disagree with everything I say, but one generally accepted indicator of the health of a society is life expectancy, and U.S. life expectancy is going down:

    ‘”Notable among poor-performing countries is the U.S.A., whose life expectancy at birth is already lower than most other high-income countries, and is projected to fall further behind such that its 2030 life expectancy at birth might be similar to the Czech Republic for men, and Croatia and Mexico for women,’ says the United Kingdom’s medical journal “Lancet,” which published the study.

    The research was undertaken by the World Health Organization and Imperial College London, CNBC News reports. The study analyzed life expectancy rates of 35 developed countries. CNBC reports that “the U.S. was found to be on course for the lowest average life expectancy levels of all the rich countries worldwide.”

    https://www.usnews.com/news/health-care-news/articles/2017-02-22/us-life-expectancy-expected-to-be-on-par-with-mexico-czech-republic-in-2030

    “Christianity was certainly one of several influences on America’s Founders. But clearly there were other overlapping, intellectual influences in the era. They were driven by English political-legal traditions, their own political experiences, their own faiths, and were motivated by varying degrees by personal, class, or State pursuits. However, this specific “virtue”, while noble, is NOT a requirement for American citizens today to be “saved”, nor must it be exclusively invoked. Our society consists of ethical and moral people, each of whom has that an inner spiritual compass.”

    Your obtusity is breathtaking; you haven’t the slightest clue what you’re hand-waving about. I can’t write a book here so I’ll try to be brief. First, Christian virtue is not some kind of recondite, irrelevant, religious dogma, but common sense. You put God (goodness, truth, love, etc.) first and you treat your neighbor the way you want to be treated. Simple.

    Second, the Founders and the Framers understood that “liberty and freedom” come from God, the creator.

    “The right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in the power of man to alienate this gift and voluntarily become a slave … These may be best understood by reading and carefully studying the institutes of the great Law Giver and Head of the Christian Church, which are to be found clearly written and promulgated in the New Testament.”

    - Samuel Adams (1722-1803), American revolutionary and Founding Father, in The Rights of the Colonists, November 20, 1772.

    https://history.hanover.edu/texts/adamss.html

    Since men have inalienable God-given natural rights, government power had to be limited; thus the Constitution. But in order for government to function, they had to give it some “supernatural” power. And there’s the rub. There’s where the evil can seep in and wreak havoc. This is why John Adams said:

    “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

    All of this is to be contrasted with Satanic communism, for example, where “the state” = “god”, and “the people” have no natural right to exist. As far as our de facto communist “government” is concerned, only “the state” has a right to exist, and “the people”, to the extent they’re allowed by the state to exist in the first place, exist merely to serve their communist masters, i.e., “the state.”

    I think further discussion is pointless.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Twodees Partain
    "I think further discussion is pointless."

    I think your mind's a'comin to you now, Harold. Corvy made my ignore list after his first reply to one of my comments. He has never deserved more than a two word reply, one that starts with F and ends in Off.
    , @Harold Smith
    I forgot to include a rather ominous statement from Ben Franklin which comports with John Adams statement but goes a little further and predicts the end of the republic, due to the corruption of "the people":

    "In these sentiments, Sir, I agree to this Constitution with all its faults, if they are such; because I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of Government but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered, and believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in Despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic Government, being incapable of any other." (Benjamin Franklin to the Federal Convention 17 Sept. 1787.

    http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a7s3.html

    , @Corvinus
    "Any honest person with eyes to see knows..."

    So anyone who fails to meet your definition of an honest person in this situation is NOT an honest person? Really?

    Wow, just wow.

    "but one generally accepted indicator of the health of a society is life expectancy, and U.S. life expectancy is going down"

    Indeed. But let us offer some context and deeper analysis here.

    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/report-us-life-expectancy-lowest-among-wealthy-nations-due-to-disease-violence/

    "First, Christian virtue is not some kind of recondite, irrelevant, religious dogma, but common sense. You put God (goodness, truth, love, etc.) first and you treat your neighbor the way you want to be treated. Simple."

    It is noble here what you say. And, in the context of the development of our government, a number of our Founding Fathers were influenced by it. However, Christian virtue was not the SOLE basis for ALL citizens of our nation at that time, nor 100 years ago, nor today. Against, people need not be Christian to espouse virtue, nor is Christian virtue the only, shall I say, "worthwhile" virtue.

    "Second, the Founders and the Framers understood that “liberty and freedom” come from God, the creator."

    There has been considerable debate here.

    Charles L. Cohen, PhD, Director of the Lubar Institute for the Study of the Abrahamic Religions, wrote in July 2006 that "The Framers did consider religion an important source of social morality - but they also knew that religious broils could destabilize governments, and, more than almost anything else, many of them feared denominational conflict."

    Vincent Phillip Muñoz, PhD, Assistant Professor of Political Science at Tufts University, wrote in his paper "Religious Liberty and the American Founding" (2003): "Although the founders agreed on the legitimate ends of government, they disagreed about the means the state could use to secure those ends. Specifically, the founders disagreed on whether the government legitimately could employ religion as a means to secure republican liberty. Two general positions existed. On one side stood the libertarians, who emphasized the need to limit government in order to protect civil and religious liberty. James Madison and Thomas Jefferson most clearly represent this position. On the other side were those of a more conservative disposition, who believed religion supported the good order of society and thus that government should endorse and encourage religion. George Washington most clearly represents this position."

    Besides, which God exclusively? The Christian God? What about those who are Jews or Muslims in our nation? Or agnostics or atheists? Are Jews, Muslims, and others automatically labeled as other than virtuous?

    "Since men have inalienable God-given natural rights, government power had to be limited; thus the Constitution. But in order for government to function, they had to give it some “supernatural” power. And there’s the rub. There’s where the evil can seep in and wreak havoc."

    Here is, to me, an interesting analysis regarding liberty and virtue in the American founding.

    https://www.hoover.org/sites/default/files/uploads/documents/0817939628_3.pdf

    "[Locke's] political thought typically contains contradictions, of which this one is perhaps the most important, but he leaves the reader to do the work of establishing the contradictions and working out their implications. In this case and in other cases, Locke does not leave the contradiction as flat as I have reported it; he teases readers with possible routes by which it might be harmonized. But most of all, Locke lets readers do their own harmonizing by allowing them to combine two things they want to believe.

    Almost all of Locke’s readers would want to believe in the truth of Scripture, and many of them would like to think, or might be persuaded to think, that their belief is compatible with, or even entails, the notion of liberty that Locke sets forth. The difference between belonging to God and belonging to yourself is not a small one. The opening question of the Heidelberg Catechism, a Reformation statement of Calvinist doctrine, says: “Q. What is your only comfort, in life and in death? A. That I belong—body and soul, in life and in death—not to myself but to my faithful Savior.” Locke is sometimes said to be a Calvinist, and here is evidence of it; but the trouble is that he also shows evidence of the contrary. When he says that “every man has a property in his own person,” he is starting the chapter on private property and opening his argument on the labor theory of value.

    Private property, it turns out, means property that belongs to human beings and not to God. When Locke speaks of charity from the rich to the poor, he makes it not a duty commanded by God but a right of the starving poor to the “surplusage” of the rich. Here again Locke leaves a point to be noticed by those who can and want to notice, but he does not insist on it. How wise of him not to do so! The peace and prosperity of America depend on the peculiarly successful equivocation that Locke initiated between man’s looking up to God and man’s striking out on his own. What suffers somewhat is America’s reputation for philosophical study and awareness of its principles. “But a nation of philosophers is as little to be expected as the philosophical race of kings wished for by Plato.” This truth from the pen of Publius is a kind of guarantee that the harmonization between religion and liberty drawn from Locke by Americans was not the reasoning that Locke had in mind
    for himself.

    Let us summarize the problem and its solution as Locke saw them. The workmanship argument makes man the work of God and thus establishes divine right over man, who though made in God’s image remains the property of God, hence a slave. The selfownership argument, by contrast, asserts that man is his own property, thus free and not a slave. The workmanship argument needs a notion of the soul as the conduit from God to man and the window through which man can see God (indistinctly, of course). But Locke hardly speaks of the soul in his work on political principles, Two Treatises of Government. For Locke, it seems, the soul is the instrument of man’s enslavement to an entity above himself insufficiently concerned with man’s necessities, the necessities that require him to leave the state of nature and enter civil society. If man has a soul, then in Locke’s view it would follow that he is neither free nor virtuous (for a slave has no virtue since virtue requires freedom). Instead of a soul, Locke supposes that man may have a “self,” for the strongest desire in man is the desire for self-preservation.

    And in the desire for preservation, the self is concerned with the body and seems limited by the wayward attractions of the bodily senses. The senses are passive and receptive rather than active, and they seem to lack any direction or integrity of their own. Every time we think we are attending to something we are actually merely being distracted by it, bombarded by impressions of sense. Just as the soul is questionable because it yearns for something divine, invisible to us, so the self is dubious because it seems to be not a whole but a bundle of distractions. But Locke in effect declares the self to have the substance that previously was claimed for the soul, and in this way he combines divine right and nondivine right. He seems to say: You can have self-preservation without risking the salvation of your soul—or even instead of it. Whichever. It’s up to you."

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  91. @NoseytheDuke
    Sorry Harold, I regret not mentioning this to you earlier, but you may as well bang your head against a rock until blood spills over the top of your boots than "debate" with Convolutus or whatever it calls itself. Your comments are generally very worthwhile so I hate to see your time wasted. Cheers.

    Thanks for the thought. I was wondering why I have such a headache lately :)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  92. Sean says:
    @CalDre

    Yes, because it is not like Russia has space to retreat into.

     

    Yes, but they do not plan to retreat. They plan to nuke the invaders instead. Much better strategy.

    Of course if US were invaded, Americans would rather retreat from NY, LA, SF, Houston, Miami and D.C. than fight the aggressors. You see, Americans are a friendly folk, they don't like to hurt others.

    The US would withdraw if invaded by, for instance, a future mega power China. Why fight a more powerful opponent instead of using space. Only if a conventional attack was destroying a large proportion of unlaunched weapons and removing the nuclear deterrent (against nuclear attack) would there be any temptation to use nukes in response to conventional attack. Historically Russia had had the space to win against more capable peoples eventually, and as that is their strength I would expect them to use it early and keep on using it.

    Anyway, why on Earth would anyone invade Russia, it has nothing the US or Europe wants. The main reason that the Soviets were almost beaten in 1941 was that Stalin had his forces stand and fight too far forward instead of withdrawing. The US would withdraw if invaded by a future mega power such as China. So would Russia although they have a vast number of tactical nukes probably intended for threatening China with.

    The Soviet Union never had any plan to attack Europe, but they had huge conventional forces, as did the US. Both sides said they planned to nuke any invasion, but talk is cheap. If you look at their actions, the superpowers were both preparing to use nukes in retaliation to a nuclear attack, but fight conventional attack conventionally. This trip wire across the border stuff and nuke any conventional attack imediately stuff was was American propaganda, and intended to obviate the need to match the Soviets in conventional weapons, which are very expensive.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CalDre

    Historically Russia had had the space to win against more capable peoples eventually, and as that is their strength I would expect them to use it early and keep on using it.
     
    I agree, but once the invaders reach St. Petersburg or Moscow, game over. Russia will not let those cities be destroyed. Regardless of what you think (which I think is utterly wrong). Of course I do not think Russia would start with a nuclear attack on the invader's homeland - no, they will use tactical nukes to wipe out the invading army. If the invading army responds with tactical nukes and then again risks taking these two cities, then Russia would presumably launch tactical nukes at the invader's homeland. You know, there will be some escalation, I don't think it will go straight to a full exchange, but the escalation could happen pretty quickly.

    Anyway, why on Earth would anyone invade Russia, it has nothing the US or Europe wants.
     
    Seriously? It has tremendous resources - more oil than Saudi Arabia, more gas than Iran, more land than you can shake a stick at. Plus, if it's not obvious. the US and Europe are an Empire, they want to control the entire planet, as a matter of principle, and are willing to fight wars to accomplish that (and have been willing for centuries). The only reason they don't invade, now, is because of the nuclear deterrent, which you seem to indicate Russia should never use. LOL.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  93. @Sean
    Every attempt at fighting Israel has ended in severe defeats for the Arabs, and those helping them. Carter neutralized Egypt, they are paid off and want to keep getting US money, the generals are not going to go on jihad and energise homegrown Islamic radicals after all the trouble they have had suppressing them. Turkey is a former Ottoman oppressor of the Middle East, and not only widely hated in Arab countries but the first Muslim majority country to recognize the State of Israel. Crucially, the army in Turkey (and Egypt) want access to American military technology at bargain basement prices. Turkey is not contiguous with Iran, and if they attack Israel or the US their armed forces will smashed and never rebuilt leaving them isolated and at the mercy of the Kurds and Russians.

    The idea that a future Palestinian state would adhere to being a “demilitarized state” is totally unrealistic, especially if we consider the history and nature of Arab regimes. Louis Rene Beres, Emeritus Professor of International Law, has pointed out that even “If the government of a fully sovereign Palestinian state were in fact willing to consider itself bound by some pre-state agreement to demilitarize, in these improbable circumstances, the new Palestinian Arab government could likely identify ample pretext and opportunity to invoke lawful ‘treaty’ termination.
     
    Europe wants a(nother) Palestinian state (in addition to Jordan). That is the official policy of the US too. In his book on Israel, Carter said back in the mid seventies, before Begin started mass settlement building, he left Israel confident, as everybody was, that land would be traded for peace. The settlement building had already taken most of the land a generation later by the time Barak offered a deal, and the Palestinians turned it down, thinking that the West would eventually force Israel to give them something better. Many more settlement have been built since.

    Who cares about Europe? The clear aspiration of the US establishment is for a settlement and a new Palestinian state. Crucially, Israel is having to pretend that all is the same as in the seventies with land on offer, but they are not serious about giving anything like as much land as Palestinians would settle for. If things go on as they are, the Palestinians will eventually win. Trump has already signaled the tenor and submarining of his policy by moving the US embassy to Jerusalem, and exposed Europe as irrelevant.

    “Every attempt at fighting Israel has ended in severe defeats for the Arabs, and those helping them.”

    That’s like saying that a toy poodle has consistently beaten up a chihuahua in those cases where the poodle’s human owner intervened to help. I think you’ve been taking retarded comments 101 under professor Buchanan.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  94. @Harold Smith
    "'I disagree. Perhaps you haven’t noticed, but this whole society seems to be collapsing…'

    At various points in time in our nation’s history, this claim has been made, whether it be in the 1850′s with the bitter conflict between North and South (which led to war), to the 1890′s with the influx of undesirable Southern/Eastern Europeans, to the 1960′s with the removal of Jim Crow laws in the South. While certainly there major issues that are contentious, with sides being taken, I am not going down the rabbit hole of Chicken Little. It’s a broken record played by the Coalition of the Fringes Left and the Coalition of the Fringes Right."

    Any honest person with eyes to see knows that the U.S. is going down. The evidence is abundant: property taxation is out of control, health care costs are out of control, drug use is out of control, retail stores are shutting down/going bankrupt, etc...the rot is everywhere.

    Of course you will disagree with everything I say, but one generally accepted indicator of the health of a society is life expectancy, and U.S. life expectancy is going down:

    '"Notable among poor-performing countries is the U.S.A., whose life expectancy at birth is already lower than most other high-income countries, and is projected to fall further behind such that its 2030 life expectancy at birth might be similar to the Czech Republic for men, and Croatia and Mexico for women,' says the United Kingdom's medical journal "Lancet," which published the study.

    The research was undertaken by the World Health Organization and Imperial College London, CNBC News reports. The study analyzed life expectancy rates of 35 developed countries. CNBC reports that "the U.S. was found to be on course for the lowest average life expectancy levels of all the rich countries worldwide."

    https://www.usnews.com/news/health-care-news/articles/2017-02-22/us-life-expectancy-expected-to-be-on-par-with-mexico-czech-republic-in-2030

    "Christianity was certainly one of several influences on America’s Founders. But clearly there were other overlapping, intellectual influences in the era. They were driven by English political-legal traditions, their own political experiences, their own faiths, and were motivated by varying degrees by personal, class, or State pursuits. However, this specific “virtue”, while noble, is NOT a requirement for American citizens today to be “saved”, nor must it be exclusively invoked. Our society consists of ethical and moral people, each of whom has that an inner spiritual compass."

    Your obtusity is breathtaking; you haven't the slightest clue what you're hand-waving about. I can't write a book here so I'll try to be brief. First, Christian virtue is not some kind of recondite, irrelevant, religious dogma, but common sense. You put God (goodness, truth, love, etc.) first and you treat your neighbor the way you want to be treated. Simple.

    Second, the Founders and the Framers understood that "liberty and freedom" come from God, the creator.

    "The right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in the power of man to alienate this gift and voluntarily become a slave ... These may be best understood by reading and carefully studying the institutes of the great Law Giver and Head of the Christian Church, which are to be found clearly written and promulgated in the New Testament."

    - Samuel Adams (1722-1803), American revolutionary and Founding Father, in The Rights of the Colonists, November 20, 1772.

    https://history.hanover.edu/texts/adamss.html

    Since men have inalienable God-given natural rights, government power had to be limited; thus the Constitution. But in order for government to function, they had to give it some "supernatural" power. And there's the rub. There's where the evil can seep in and wreak havoc. This is why John Adams said:

    "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

    All of this is to be contrasted with Satanic communism, for example, where "the state" = "god", and "the people" have no natural right to exist. As far as our de facto communist "government" is concerned, only "the state" has a right to exist, and "the people", to the extent they're allowed by the state to exist in the first place, exist merely to serve their communist masters, i.e., "the state."

    I think further discussion is pointless.

    “I think further discussion is pointless.”

    I think your mind’s a’comin to you now, Harold. Corvy made my ignore list after his first reply to one of my comments. He has never deserved more than a two word reply, one that starts with F and ends in Off.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  95. Sean says:

    Egypt was thrashed in 1967, but thought it was being taken too lightly and attacked Israel in 1973 even though it knew Israel had nukes. Honour satisfied, Egypt allowed itself to be bought off by massive aid from Carter and made peace with Israel. Then, with the Egyptian deterrent neutralized, Israel under Begin began attacking Lebanon and building settlements. Saddam was hanged, Syria is wrecked, and Iran is the last deterrent to transfers.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  96. @Harold Smith
    "'I disagree. Perhaps you haven’t noticed, but this whole society seems to be collapsing…'

    At various points in time in our nation’s history, this claim has been made, whether it be in the 1850′s with the bitter conflict between North and South (which led to war), to the 1890′s with the influx of undesirable Southern/Eastern Europeans, to the 1960′s with the removal of Jim Crow laws in the South. While certainly there major issues that are contentious, with sides being taken, I am not going down the rabbit hole of Chicken Little. It’s a broken record played by the Coalition of the Fringes Left and the Coalition of the Fringes Right."

    Any honest person with eyes to see knows that the U.S. is going down. The evidence is abundant: property taxation is out of control, health care costs are out of control, drug use is out of control, retail stores are shutting down/going bankrupt, etc...the rot is everywhere.

    Of course you will disagree with everything I say, but one generally accepted indicator of the health of a society is life expectancy, and U.S. life expectancy is going down:

    '"Notable among poor-performing countries is the U.S.A., whose life expectancy at birth is already lower than most other high-income countries, and is projected to fall further behind such that its 2030 life expectancy at birth might be similar to the Czech Republic for men, and Croatia and Mexico for women,' says the United Kingdom's medical journal "Lancet," which published the study.

    The research was undertaken by the World Health Organization and Imperial College London, CNBC News reports. The study analyzed life expectancy rates of 35 developed countries. CNBC reports that "the U.S. was found to be on course for the lowest average life expectancy levels of all the rich countries worldwide."

    https://www.usnews.com/news/health-care-news/articles/2017-02-22/us-life-expectancy-expected-to-be-on-par-with-mexico-czech-republic-in-2030

    "Christianity was certainly one of several influences on America’s Founders. But clearly there were other overlapping, intellectual influences in the era. They were driven by English political-legal traditions, their own political experiences, their own faiths, and were motivated by varying degrees by personal, class, or State pursuits. However, this specific “virtue”, while noble, is NOT a requirement for American citizens today to be “saved”, nor must it be exclusively invoked. Our society consists of ethical and moral people, each of whom has that an inner spiritual compass."

    Your obtusity is breathtaking; you haven't the slightest clue what you're hand-waving about. I can't write a book here so I'll try to be brief. First, Christian virtue is not some kind of recondite, irrelevant, religious dogma, but common sense. You put God (goodness, truth, love, etc.) first and you treat your neighbor the way you want to be treated. Simple.

    Second, the Founders and the Framers understood that "liberty and freedom" come from God, the creator.

    "The right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in the power of man to alienate this gift and voluntarily become a slave ... These may be best understood by reading and carefully studying the institutes of the great Law Giver and Head of the Christian Church, which are to be found clearly written and promulgated in the New Testament."

    - Samuel Adams (1722-1803), American revolutionary and Founding Father, in The Rights of the Colonists, November 20, 1772.

    https://history.hanover.edu/texts/adamss.html

    Since men have inalienable God-given natural rights, government power had to be limited; thus the Constitution. But in order for government to function, they had to give it some "supernatural" power. And there's the rub. There's where the evil can seep in and wreak havoc. This is why John Adams said:

    "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

    All of this is to be contrasted with Satanic communism, for example, where "the state" = "god", and "the people" have no natural right to exist. As far as our de facto communist "government" is concerned, only "the state" has a right to exist, and "the people", to the extent they're allowed by the state to exist in the first place, exist merely to serve their communist masters, i.e., "the state."

    I think further discussion is pointless.

    I forgot to include a rather ominous statement from Ben Franklin which comports with John Adams statement but goes a little further and predicts the end of the republic, due to the corruption of “the people”:

    “In these sentiments, Sir, I agree to this Constitution with all its faults, if they are such; because I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of Government but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered, and believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in Despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic Government, being incapable of any other.” (Benjamin Franklin to the Federal Convention 17 Sept. 1787.

    http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a7s3.html

    Read More
    • Replies: @bluedog
    I like the one by Madison the best "if your representative betrays you it is your duty to remove him,by any means by force if neccessary" and that's long overdue>>>
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  97. Corvinus says:
    @Harold Smith
    "'I disagree. Perhaps you haven’t noticed, but this whole society seems to be collapsing…'

    At various points in time in our nation’s history, this claim has been made, whether it be in the 1850′s with the bitter conflict between North and South (which led to war), to the 1890′s with the influx of undesirable Southern/Eastern Europeans, to the 1960′s with the removal of Jim Crow laws in the South. While certainly there major issues that are contentious, with sides being taken, I am not going down the rabbit hole of Chicken Little. It’s a broken record played by the Coalition of the Fringes Left and the Coalition of the Fringes Right."

    Any honest person with eyes to see knows that the U.S. is going down. The evidence is abundant: property taxation is out of control, health care costs are out of control, drug use is out of control, retail stores are shutting down/going bankrupt, etc...the rot is everywhere.

    Of course you will disagree with everything I say, but one generally accepted indicator of the health of a society is life expectancy, and U.S. life expectancy is going down:

    '"Notable among poor-performing countries is the U.S.A., whose life expectancy at birth is already lower than most other high-income countries, and is projected to fall further behind such that its 2030 life expectancy at birth might be similar to the Czech Republic for men, and Croatia and Mexico for women,' says the United Kingdom's medical journal "Lancet," which published the study.

    The research was undertaken by the World Health Organization and Imperial College London, CNBC News reports. The study analyzed life expectancy rates of 35 developed countries. CNBC reports that "the U.S. was found to be on course for the lowest average life expectancy levels of all the rich countries worldwide."

    https://www.usnews.com/news/health-care-news/articles/2017-02-22/us-life-expectancy-expected-to-be-on-par-with-mexico-czech-republic-in-2030

    "Christianity was certainly one of several influences on America’s Founders. But clearly there were other overlapping, intellectual influences in the era. They were driven by English political-legal traditions, their own political experiences, their own faiths, and were motivated by varying degrees by personal, class, or State pursuits. However, this specific “virtue”, while noble, is NOT a requirement for American citizens today to be “saved”, nor must it be exclusively invoked. Our society consists of ethical and moral people, each of whom has that an inner spiritual compass."

    Your obtusity is breathtaking; you haven't the slightest clue what you're hand-waving about. I can't write a book here so I'll try to be brief. First, Christian virtue is not some kind of recondite, irrelevant, religious dogma, but common sense. You put God (goodness, truth, love, etc.) first and you treat your neighbor the way you want to be treated. Simple.

    Second, the Founders and the Framers understood that "liberty and freedom" come from God, the creator.

    "The right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in the power of man to alienate this gift and voluntarily become a slave ... These may be best understood by reading and carefully studying the institutes of the great Law Giver and Head of the Christian Church, which are to be found clearly written and promulgated in the New Testament."

    - Samuel Adams (1722-1803), American revolutionary and Founding Father, in The Rights of the Colonists, November 20, 1772.

    https://history.hanover.edu/texts/adamss.html

    Since men have inalienable God-given natural rights, government power had to be limited; thus the Constitution. But in order for government to function, they had to give it some "supernatural" power. And there's the rub. There's where the evil can seep in and wreak havoc. This is why John Adams said:

    "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

    All of this is to be contrasted with Satanic communism, for example, where "the state" = "god", and "the people" have no natural right to exist. As far as our de facto communist "government" is concerned, only "the state" has a right to exist, and "the people", to the extent they're allowed by the state to exist in the first place, exist merely to serve their communist masters, i.e., "the state."

    I think further discussion is pointless.

    “Any honest person with eyes to see knows…”

    So anyone who fails to meet your definition of an honest person in this situation is NOT an honest person? Really?

    Wow, just wow.

    “but one generally accepted indicator of the health of a society is life expectancy, and U.S. life expectancy is going down”

    Indeed. But let us offer some context and deeper analysis here.

    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/report-us-life-expectancy-lowest-among-wealthy-nations-due-to-disease-violence/

    “First, Christian virtue is not some kind of recondite, irrelevant, religious dogma, but common sense. You put God (goodness, truth, love, etc.) first and you treat your neighbor the way you want to be treated. Simple.”

    It is noble here what you say. And, in the context of the development of our government, a number of our Founding Fathers were influenced by it. However, Christian virtue was not the SOLE basis for ALL citizens of our nation at that time, nor 100 years ago, nor today. Against, people need not be Christian to espouse virtue, nor is Christian virtue the only, shall I say, “worthwhile” virtue.

    “Second, the Founders and the Framers understood that “liberty and freedom” come from God, the creator.”

    There has been considerable debate here.

    Charles L. Cohen, PhD, Director of the Lubar Institute for the Study of the Abrahamic Religions, wrote in July 2006 that “The Framers did consider religion an important source of social morality – but they also knew that religious broils could destabilize governments, and, more than almost anything else, many of them feared denominational conflict.”

    Vincent Phillip Muñoz, PhD, Assistant Professor of Political Science at Tufts University, wrote in his paper “Religious Liberty and the American Founding” (2003): “Although the founders agreed on the legitimate ends of government, they disagreed about the means the state could use to secure those ends. Specifically, the founders disagreed on whether the government legitimately could employ religion as a means to secure republican liberty. Two general positions existed. On one side stood the libertarians, who emphasized the need to limit government in order to protect civil and religious liberty. James Madison and Thomas Jefferson most clearly represent this position. On the other side were those of a more conservative disposition, who believed religion supported the good order of society and thus that government should endorse and encourage religion. George Washington most clearly represents this position.”

    Besides, which God exclusively? The Christian God? What about those who are Jews or Muslims in our nation? Or agnostics or atheists? Are Jews, Muslims, and others automatically labeled as other than virtuous?

    “Since men have inalienable God-given natural rights, government power had to be limited; thus the Constitution. But in order for government to function, they had to give it some “supernatural” power. And there’s the rub. There’s where the evil can seep in and wreak havoc.”

    Here is, to me, an interesting analysis regarding liberty and virtue in the American founding.

    https://www.hoover.org/sites/default/files/uploads/documents/0817939628_3.pdf

    “[Locke's] political thought typically contains contradictions, of which this one is perhaps the most important, but he leaves the reader to do the work of establishing the contradictions and working out their implications. In this case and in other cases, Locke does not leave the contradiction as flat as I have reported it; he teases readers with possible routes by which it might be harmonized. But most of all, Locke lets readers do their own harmonizing by allowing them to combine two things they want to believe.

    Almost all of Locke’s readers would want to believe in the truth of Scripture, and many of them would like to think, or might be persuaded to think, that their belief is compatible with, or even entails, the notion of liberty that Locke sets forth. The difference between belonging to God and belonging to yourself is not a small one. The opening question of the Heidelberg Catechism, a Reformation statement of Calvinist doctrine, says: “Q. What is your only comfort, in life and in death? A. That I belong—body and soul, in life and in death—not to myself but to my faithful Savior.” Locke is sometimes said to be a Calvinist, and here is evidence of it; but the trouble is that he also shows evidence of the contrary. When he says that “every man has a property in his own person,” he is starting the chapter on private property and opening his argument on the labor theory of value.

    Private property, it turns out, means property that belongs to human beings and not to God. When Locke speaks of charity from the rich to the poor, he makes it not a duty commanded by God but a right of the starving poor to the “surplusage” of the rich. Here again Locke leaves a point to be noticed by those who can and want to notice, but he does not insist on it. How wise of him not to do so! The peace and prosperity of America depend on the peculiarly successful equivocation that Locke initiated between man’s looking up to God and man’s striking out on his own. What suffers somewhat is America’s reputation for philosophical study and awareness of its principles. “But a nation of philosophers is as little to be expected as the philosophical race of kings wished for by Plato.” This truth from the pen of Publius is a kind of guarantee that the harmonization between religion and liberty drawn from Locke by Americans was not the reasoning that Locke had in mind
    for himself.

    Let us summarize the problem and its solution as Locke saw them. The workmanship argument makes man the work of God and thus establishes divine right over man, who though made in God’s image remains the property of God, hence a slave. The selfownership argument, by contrast, asserts that man is his own property, thus free and not a slave. The workmanship argument needs a notion of the soul as the conduit from God to man and the window through which man can see God (indistinctly, of course). But Locke hardly speaks of the soul in his work on political principles, Two Treatises of Government. For Locke, it seems, the soul is the instrument of man’s enslavement to an entity above himself insufficiently concerned with man’s necessities, the necessities that require him to leave the state of nature and enter civil society. If man has a soul, then in Locke’s view it would follow that he is neither free nor virtuous (for a slave has no virtue since virtue requires freedom). Instead of a soul, Locke supposes that man may have a “self,” for the strongest desire in man is the desire for self-preservation.

    And in the desire for preservation, the self is concerned with the body and seems limited by the wayward attractions of the bodily senses. The senses are passive and receptive rather than active, and they seem to lack any direction or integrity of their own. Every time we think we are attending to something we are actually merely being distracted by it, bombarded by impressions of sense. Just as the soul is questionable because it yearns for something divine, invisible to us, so the self is dubious because it seems to be not a whole but a bundle of distractions. But Locke in effect declares the self to have the substance that previously was claimed for the soul, and in this way he combines divine right and nondivine right. He seems to say: You can have self-preservation without risking the salvation of your soul—or even instead of it. Whichever. It’s up to you.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  98. bluedog says:
    @Harold Smith
    I forgot to include a rather ominous statement from Ben Franklin which comports with John Adams statement but goes a little further and predicts the end of the republic, due to the corruption of "the people":

    "In these sentiments, Sir, I agree to this Constitution with all its faults, if they are such; because I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of Government but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered, and believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in Despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic Government, being incapable of any other." (Benjamin Franklin to the Federal Convention 17 Sept. 1787.

    http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a7s3.html

    I like the one by Madison the best “if your representative betrays you it is your duty to remove him,by any means by force if neccessary” and that’s long overdue>>>

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  99. myself says:
    @Buck Turgidson
    Two thumbs up Pat! "stupid wars" courtesy of bolton, bush, and the rest of that bunch of warmongering chicken littles. Bolton is Trump's worst pick by far. Trump said he was going to get us out of expensive no-hoper foreign military excursions .... so he picks Bolton? WTH? We'll be bombing Switzerland and Canada any day now, you never know those "bad guys" are everywhere! We never will get out from under our $19T in debt running mega-expensive supply lines 10,000 miles long. Trump says "no one will mess with us." Who is messing with us right now? China, I got it, military build-up. While we p** away trillions paying military contractors small fortunes to stay in sandholes for decades doing nothing, the Chinese invest in their infrastructure and wait out our stupidity.

    OK that ought to be enough to get me flamed for a few years

    Nah, IMHO China is messing with nobody.

    No nation (China) that spends a mere 1.6% of its GDP on the military is looking to start any wars.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  100. myself says:
    @reiner Tor
    You are assuming no one will supply Iran with air defense systems or other military hardware to inflict casualties on the US. That assumption could prove wrong.

    It took three months to convince Serbia to submit to US demands. How long will it take the vastly larger Iranian regime to do so..?

    In 2003, when we decided to topple the Tikriti tribe (Saddam’s tribe) from its position atop Iraq, the Iraqis, and the subsequent Iraqi insurgency, had ZERO outside backing. The Iraqis were completely on their own.
    Nonetheless, that war was and IS basically a failure, and took around 5,000 to 6,000 American lives (and countless maimed) from ’03 to ’11.

    What was that ancient saying that went something like “Tactics without Strategy is the noise and shouting before eventual Defeat”.
    Exhibit A: Vietnam, exhibit B: Iraq ’03 to ’11, exhibit C: Afghanistan 2001 to eternity. And our proxies have lost in Syria.

    It just don’t matter how awesome our military is, or how much battle dominance our men have, if we cannot CONVERT our battlefield success into lasting Victory.

    And as we’ve seen, we can’t.

    Given that we are currently antagonizing BOTH Russia and China, who’s to say that the Iranian state won’t have indefinite supplies of both military and civilian goods to weather a storm of any duration?

    To this layman’s mind, that spells U N W I N N A B L E

    Read More
    • Replies: @aleksandar
    Agree.
    These Pentagon "goons" here have no miltary knowledge at all.
    Only wishfull thinking and weed.
    STRATEGIC LEVEL :
    - Russia will never allow a US puppet state on the other side of the Caspian sea. That will expose its south front to much.
    - China will not allow , either its OBOR project smithered by the US and Iran is a key component of the OBOR strategy.
    Both will provide Iran will all the stuff necessary to destroy US invaders.
    TACTICAL/OPERATIONAL LEVEL :
    US strategy is always based on air power. But they will meet all kind of iranian, russian, chinese AA system available, Ss300, S400, Pantsir, Bavar 373,and so. Iranian air defence has capabilities to treat and destroy 200 targets at the same time.It will be ruthless, yes, wait for 200 or 300 US planes destroyed. And pilots taken prisoner to be paraded.
    Russian and China will not have to provide boots on the ground, the iranian army, 1million soldiers to begin with, and1.5 millions in less than 3 month has a sufficient level of forces to defeat any invasion.
    Even in case of US aggression is made by a " coalition" , this colalition will not be able to gather more , at much, than 500 000 soldiers.
    The average ratio to attack is 1/3, in this case it will be 3 defenders/ 1 invader.
    A recipe to defeat.
    And don't bet on massive desertions, iranian soldiers are tough, it will be a patriotic war, a war for survival and Iran has a 3000 year history.
    Note that iranian army is " combat proven " having wage a long conventional war against Iraq and a serious training in Syria these last 6 years both on conventional/guerilla type.
    Armchair general here have a tendancy to disregard what Iran can do as retaliation. Iran has about 5 000 short and medium range missiles, KSA and UAE will be erased, strait of Ormuz closed and the economic crisis following will "nuke " the world economy.
    Matthis, Dunford, Kelly know that, as every serious military planner do worldwide.
    The conclusion of a strategic and tactical General Staff planning will be what you said : UNWINNABLE ( unless you engage 1 million US soldiers in it )
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  101. Corvinus says:
    @CalDre

    You are very predictable here.

    1. You jump to conclusions, say your experiences trump other people’s experiences, and that everyone who disagrees with those conclusions are other than intelligent.

     
    Your predictability is twofold. First, you make accusations which have no basis in fact. Second, you ask me to prove something which is apparent to the most basic observer. So, back at you: prove where I wrote "everyone who disagrees with [my] conclusions are other than intelligent". You have your work cut out for you. You made a specific claim about a very small set of written, reviewable interactions we had. Come on, prove your point. Or are you a liar, just like the mass media?

    As to my experience trumping others' experience, that is, of course, human nature. Everyone believes what they believe, not what others believe, except for sheep. Oh yeah, that's you.

    2.You make unsubstantiated claims, are called on to provide specific evidence to support those claims, and then demand other people who call you out to offer proof, even though you are not holding yourself to that same standard.
     
    Everyone makes unsubstantiated claims. If you had to prove every single thing you said, you'd hardly make any progress, would you? As I have several times suggested in our interactions, you cannot even prove to me that you are a human being, rather than an AI bot. And that is a relatively simple proof. So, go ahead, you have your work cut out for you. Prove you are a human being. Now. Come on, you can do it, or aren't you human???

    If the media “sometimes” tells the truth, then your assertion that it lies “almost 100% of reports” is observable false.
     
    OK, you got me, I engaged in hyperbole on a comment board. Anyone with a reasonable amount of intelligence would have caught that. The fact that you didn't means (a) you are quite dumb (the AI alpha software? prove it's not!), or (b) you are being, again, an arse.

    You are overgeneralizing here, which seems to be your calling card. I get it. Any facts or figures or positions than run contrary to your own are dismissed. It’s much easier that way.
     
    Prove that I ever suggested that "any facts or figures or positions than run contrary to [m] own are dismissed". Again, we have a very limited set of interactions. The board for your proof is a small one. This should be easy. You have your challenge. Prove that your accusation is true.

    What you have found out is that you think you believe the media are nearly exclusively liars and deceivers. That is a mighty charge there, one that requires extensive analysis, rather than a mere opinion.
     
    What I have found out is that the media, particularly when it comes to matters that impact their agenda and cannot be simply disproved by the masses, are chronic, habitual liars. They cannot be trusted, at all.

    But frankly there is also a gross amount of incompetence. I have read numerous news reports in the media in which I was involved, and observed the events. In every single case, there was a clear material mis-characterization of something that happened. Like you, for example, mis-charaterizing what I wrote. We will leave it up to others if that is malice or incompetence.

    Unless you have verification, We. Don’t. Care. And the higher the IQ, the more likely a person think they are less prone to these universal thinking mistakes.
     
    Then why did you ask? You ask a question someone answers it, then you say "We. Don't. Care."? That about sums you up, right there, your character and attitude, the type of person - or AI program - you are.

    What you believe actually happened, which may or may not be accurate.
     
    Another asinine comment, come on, keep them coming. But watch the video, and tell me how honest and forthcoming your mass media liars are. Yeah, the very BBC that one day was calling Yanukovych a tyrant and thug one day for trying to prevent violent protesters from throwing Molotov cocktails against peaceful riot police, said nothing when their side had a violent revolution and then murdered numerous people in the street, including a journalist, for no reason. Even though they had video of it. That pretty much sums up the media you are so adamantly defending with your insults and mis-characterizations. It's really all quite funny to me, lol.

    False characterization. I take in media, vet the sources, compare interpretations and arguments and positions, and develop conclusions.
     
    Yeah, sure you do, you keep telling yourself that. Oh, and while you're at it, prove it. Come on, you made a claim, prove it. You sure got your work cut out for you! LOL. Yeah, back at ya, sheep-AI-man.

    There are different types of evidence. You are focusing on only one (“actual proof”), and basing everything on that standard. What constitutes “actual proof” in your mind?
     
    When it comes to something like "rape rooms" or murder of civilians - oh, well, that video I linked of the soldiers murdering the civilians in Mariupol in cold blood, which BBC ignored and turned on its head to accuse the civilians of having a "battle" with the soldiers, that video (with the 3 videos I included in it, though I had a number more which I could have used to prove the point) would prove the claim. But, interestingly, the mass media used an excerpt of the video to prove a "lie". And that is exactly why I don't trust the mass media, that is their modus operandi.

    “There is no scientific basis to believe the mass media is reporting actual events.”

    Another wild generalization here. So, what evidence other than your “experience” are you able to provide to offer particular support for this claim?

     
    So, if there is scientific evidence proving the truthfulness of the media, please do provide it. You have your work cut out for you.

    Better rethink your hypothesis.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/how-biased-is-the-media-really/2012/04/27/gIQA9jYLmT_story.html?utm_term=.2adb01d4247b

     
    Hahahahahaahahahaahaha! Washington Post! Yeah, right, they are such massive, malicious evil liars they have long ago fallen off my interest page. I read a wide array of news sources and WaPo is virtually the worst. Well, I do follow them on my Twitter account, just to mock their constant lies, slanders, war-mongering and other evil deeds, but yeah, they are profoundly and incorrigibly evil, reading them is like reading Goebbels for your news about Jews.

    “Your predictability is twofold. First, you make accusations which have no basis in fact. Second, you ask me to prove something which is apparent to the most basic observer.”

    More projection on your part.

    “Hahahahahaahahahaahaha! Washington Post! Yeah, right, they are such massive, malicious evil liars they have long ago fallen off my interest page.”

    Exactly why you any facts or figures or positions than run contrary to your own are dismissed. YOU conditioned yourself not to read critically to anything YOU believe is totally false. As a result, YOU automatically label those sources as “massive, malicious evil liars”. Disprove the contents of the source, not the source itself. You do realize that the Washington Post was reporting on the results of a study that disproved your claim that there is “no scientific basis to believe the mass media is reporting actual events” and lent evidence to the claim that there is “a scientific basis to believe the mass media is reporting events”.

    “[The media] cannot be trusted, at all.”

    That is astoundingly ignorant to say.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CalDre
    Well I see you have given up trying to prove that you are human, and conclude that your failure to substantiate the false accusations you made against me as an admission that, yes, you make false allegations. I also take your failure to rebut the two videos I posted, one having to do with Ukraine and another with Serbia, that you realize that the mass media deliberately and maliciously falsifies information, including "video proof", in order to manipulate people into illegal wars of aggression - i.e., that they are evil war criminals who deserve, under the Nuremberg principles, to be hung by the neck until dead, dead, dead.

    Of course I would never think that you would be big enough to admit it. It's beyond your character, which has more flaws than Windows 95. Instead, you make some stupid comment about my "projection", is that some pathetic effort to preserve your "dignity"? Because, well, Mr. AI-sheep-man, you don't have a shred of it, so you can give up on that hopeless endeavor.

    As to Washington Post, as a matter of policy, I do not visit their website, as that would be a page view and fall under the category of "support". I think Washington Post is one of the most evil institutions on the planet today - war criminals, murderers, liars, warmongers, hatemongers, scum of the Earth. They are not journalists, they are liars and warmongers and war criminals. They are pure evil filth. If there were any justice in the world, the millions of victims of their lies, from Iraq to Libya to Serbia to countless other places, would have the right to sue them, and the World Criminal Court would criminally prosecute them. While hanging by the neck is the most just remedy, I would settle for life in prison, hard labor.

    Provide another link to the story and I will read it. Much as I also hate the New York Times, I don't boycott that one. But as a general matter, why would anyone believe a bunch of liars trying to explain how honest they are? LOL.

    What is astoundingly ignorant, and profoundly foolish, is to place trust in habitual liars.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  102. @Corvinus
    "Any honest person with eyes to see knows..."

    So anyone who fails to meet your definition of an honest person in this situation is NOT an honest person? Really?

    Wow, just wow.

    "but one generally accepted indicator of the health of a society is life expectancy, and U.S. life expectancy is going down"

    Indeed. But let us offer some context and deeper analysis here.

    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/report-us-life-expectancy-lowest-among-wealthy-nations-due-to-disease-violence/

    "First, Christian virtue is not some kind of recondite, irrelevant, religious dogma, but common sense. You put God (goodness, truth, love, etc.) first and you treat your neighbor the way you want to be treated. Simple."

    It is noble here what you say. And, in the context of the development of our government, a number of our Founding Fathers were influenced by it. However, Christian virtue was not the SOLE basis for ALL citizens of our nation at that time, nor 100 years ago, nor today. Against, people need not be Christian to espouse virtue, nor is Christian virtue the only, shall I say, "worthwhile" virtue.

    "Second, the Founders and the Framers understood that “liberty and freedom” come from God, the creator."

    There has been considerable debate here.

    Charles L. Cohen, PhD, Director of the Lubar Institute for the Study of the Abrahamic Religions, wrote in July 2006 that "The Framers did consider religion an important source of social morality - but they also knew that religious broils could destabilize governments, and, more than almost anything else, many of them feared denominational conflict."

    Vincent Phillip Muñoz, PhD, Assistant Professor of Political Science at Tufts University, wrote in his paper "Religious Liberty and the American Founding" (2003): "Although the founders agreed on the legitimate ends of government, they disagreed about the means the state could use to secure those ends. Specifically, the founders disagreed on whether the government legitimately could employ religion as a means to secure republican liberty. Two general positions existed. On one side stood the libertarians, who emphasized the need to limit government in order to protect civil and religious liberty. James Madison and Thomas Jefferson most clearly represent this position. On the other side were those of a more conservative disposition, who believed religion supported the good order of society and thus that government should endorse and encourage religion. George Washington most clearly represents this position."

    Besides, which God exclusively? The Christian God? What about those who are Jews or Muslims in our nation? Or agnostics or atheists? Are Jews, Muslims, and others automatically labeled as other than virtuous?

    “So anyone who fails to meet your definition of an honest person in this situation is NOT an honest person? Really?”

    Not quite; rather, anyone who can look at something which is painfully obvious and yet still deny it, is dishonest, yes. Really.

    “Wow, just wow.”

    “Wow” is right. I left one qualification out of my statement because I felt it was impliedly obvious. Silly me, I should know by now that I can’t do that in a discussion with you. So allow me to say it again:

    Any honest person with eyes to see [who has some idea of what the U.S. used to be a few decades ago and therefore has a basis for comparison] knows that the U.S. is going down. Period. The end.

    “‘but one generally accepted indicator of the health of a society is life expectancy, and U.S. life expectancy is going down’

    Indeed. But let us offer some context and deeper analysis here.”

    Seriously? The reason I used “life expectancy” as a metric for the health of a society, is because it is a *composite* representation; that is to say, it includes the direct and indirect effect of things like homicide, suicide, drug overdoses, effectiveness/affordability of health care, economic hardship, homelessness, etc., etc., etc. If “gun violence” increases in a society that’s always had access to guns, then it is indicative of an emerging underlying societal problem. Do you follow?

    “However, Christian virtue was not the SOLE basis for ALL citizens of our nation at that time, nor 100 years ago, nor today. Against, people need not be Christian to espouse virtue, nor is Christian virtue the only, shall I say, ‘worthwhile’ virtue.”

    I feel that headache coming back again. I think I might be allergic to strawmen. I better stop here.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "Not quite; rather, anyone who can look at something which is painfully obvious and yet still deny it, is dishonest, yes. Really."

    The problem here is you ASSUME it is, without question, painfully obvious. Anyone who YOU believe denies it, or does not admit to themselves, then fails to meet YOUR metric of honesty. However, people could actually disagree with you, and be honest and forthright in their assessment of the situation. Classic 101 SJW Sophistry on your part. Bravo.

    "Any honest person with eyes to see [who has some idea of what the U.S. used to be a few decades ago and therefore has a basis for comparison] knows that the U.S. is going down. Period. The end."

    No, there is no "Period. The End" here. The U.S. a few decades ago also had similar issues. No doubt, people like yourself believed there was impending doom, yet it has not materialized in the way that it had been forecasted.

    Furthermore, "What the U.S. used to be a few decades ago" is vague. I am not going to make an educated guess as to what you mean, as it would come back to haunt me. Just state it clearly and concisely rather than talking in code.

    "The reason I used “life expectancy” as a metric for the health of a society, is because it is a *composite* representation..."

    A composite representation that must be broken down into its singular causes, with then an explanation how they play off of one another. The link I provided offers that context and deeper analysis compared to your source.

    "I feel that headache coming back again. I think I might be allergic to strawmen. I better stop here."

    My statement was not intentionally misrepresenting one of your arguments. Rather, it was a point of clarification. Did you even bother to read Comment 99?

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  103. CalDre says:
    @Sean
    The US would withdraw if invaded by, for instance, a future mega power China. Why fight a more powerful opponent instead of using space. Only if a conventional attack was destroying a large proportion of unlaunched weapons and removing the nuclear deterrent (against nuclear attack) would there be any temptation to use nukes in response to conventional attack. Historically Russia had had the space to win against more capable peoples eventually, and as that is their strength I would expect them to use it early and keep on using it.

    Anyway, why on Earth would anyone invade Russia, it has nothing the US or Europe wants. The main reason that the Soviets were almost beaten in 1941 was that Stalin had his forces stand and fight too far forward instead of withdrawing. The US would withdraw if invaded by a future mega power such as China. So would Russia although they have a vast number of tactical nukes probably intended for threatening China with.

    The Soviet Union never had any plan to attack Europe, but they had huge conventional forces, as did the US. Both sides said they planned to nuke any invasion, but talk is cheap. If you look at their actions, the superpowers were both preparing to use nukes in retaliation to a nuclear attack, but fight conventional attack conventionally. This trip wire across the border stuff and nuke any conventional attack imediately stuff was was American propaganda, and intended to obviate the need to match the Soviets in conventional weapons, which are very expensive.

    Historically Russia had had the space to win against more capable peoples eventually, and as that is their strength I would expect them to use it early and keep on using it.

    I agree, but once the invaders reach St. Petersburg or Moscow, game over. Russia will not let those cities be destroyed. Regardless of what you think (which I think is utterly wrong). Of course I do not think Russia would start with a nuclear attack on the invader’s homeland – no, they will use tactical nukes to wipe out the invading army. If the invading army responds with tactical nukes and then again risks taking these two cities, then Russia would presumably launch tactical nukes at the invader’s homeland. You know, there will be some escalation, I don’t think it will go straight to a full exchange, but the escalation could happen pretty quickly.

    Anyway, why on Earth would anyone invade Russia, it has nothing the US or Europe wants.

    Seriously? It has tremendous resources – more oil than Saudi Arabia, more gas than Iran, more land than you can shake a stick at. Plus, if it’s not obvious. the US and Europe are an Empire, they want to control the entire planet, as a matter of principle, and are willing to fight wars to accomplish that (and have been willing for centuries). The only reason they don’t invade, now, is because of the nuclear deterrent, which you seem to indicate Russia should never use. LOL.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sean

    Russia will not let those cities be destroyed. Regardless of what you think (which I think is utterly wrong). Of course I do not think Russia would start with a nuclear attack on the invader’s homeland – no, they will use tactical nukes to wipe out the invading army.
     
    If the US wanted to conquer Russia, destroying Moscow or St. Petersburg would seem counterproductive. If the Russia wanted to save their cities they would not use tactical nukes, because that would signal the begining of a tit for tat that would involve Russian cities being destroyed. Moreover, again, and again Russia could unfalsifiably attest to their willingness to nuke an enemy as soon as it crossed the Russian borders by having only token conventional forces., they don't. The conventional weapons are not needed at all if you believe what you do, but through they theoretically could just nuke them, evey country is spending vasr sums of conventional weapons, whivh have a military purpose, unlike nuclear weapons, which ware .on wars cannot be fought that way,

    Russia is more irrelevant today than ever before. The US could have went to war with Soviets while they had no nuclear weapons. Russia has nothing that the US needs . Russian natural gas us by Europe could be replaced by America, and that is why they cannot switch off the pipline .


    The only reason they don’t invade, now, is because of the nuclear deterrent, which you seem to indicate Russia should never use. LOL.
     
    Nuclear weapons are a deterrent to nuclear war only. That is why Khrushchev was appalled at the US's early sixties MLF idea of Germany being unified and with the right to be in on a decision to use nukes. Russia had enough nukes to stop a conventional attack; so what were they worried about. While it is possible that a nuclear war would start if the US invaded Russia, use of tactical nukes by Russia would be retaliated to and the after Russians cities were destroyed they would use strategic weapons on US cities. Far from Russian first use saving their cities, it would guarantee their destruction as welll as the enemies
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  104. CalDre says:
    @Corvinus
    "Your predictability is twofold. First, you make accusations which have no basis in fact. Second, you ask me to prove something which is apparent to the most basic observer."

    More projection on your part.

    "Hahahahahaahahahaahaha! Washington Post! Yeah, right, they are such massive, malicious evil liars they have long ago fallen off my interest page."

    Exactly why you any facts or figures or positions than run contrary to your own are dismissed. YOU conditioned yourself not to read critically to anything YOU believe is totally false. As a result, YOU automatically label those sources as "massive, malicious evil liars". Disprove the contents of the source, not the source itself. You do realize that the Washington Post was reporting on the results of a study that disproved your claim that there is "no scientific basis to believe the mass media is reporting actual events" and lent evidence to the claim that there is "a scientific basis to believe the mass media is reporting events".

    "[The media] cannot be trusted, at all."

    That is astoundingly ignorant to say.

    Well I see you have given up trying to prove that you are human, and conclude that your failure to substantiate the false accusations you made against me as an admission that, yes, you make false allegations. I also take your failure to rebut the two videos I posted, one having to do with Ukraine and another with Serbia, that you realize that the mass media deliberately and maliciously falsifies information, including “video proof”, in order to manipulate people into illegal wars of aggression – i.e., that they are evil war criminals who deserve, under the Nuremberg principles, to be hung by the neck until dead, dead, dead.

    Of course I would never think that you would be big enough to admit it. It’s beyond your character, which has more flaws than Windows 95. Instead, you make some stupid comment about my “projection”, is that some pathetic effort to preserve your “dignity”? Because, well, Mr. AI-sheep-man, you don’t have a shred of it, so you can give up on that hopeless endeavor.

    As to Washington Post, as a matter of policy, I do not visit their website, as that would be a page view and fall under the category of “support”. I think Washington Post is one of the most evil institutions on the planet today – war criminals, murderers, liars, warmongers, hatemongers, scum of the Earth. They are not journalists, they are liars and warmongers and war criminals. They are pure evil filth. If there were any justice in the world, the millions of victims of their lies, from Iraq to Libya to Serbia to countless other places, would have the right to sue them, and the World Criminal Court would criminally prosecute them. While hanging by the neck is the most just remedy, I would settle for life in prison, hard labor.

    Provide another link to the story and I will read it. Much as I also hate the New York Times, I don’t boycott that one. But as a general matter, why would anyone believe a bunch of liars trying to explain how honest they are? LOL.

    What is astoundingly ignorant, and profoundly foolish, is to place trust in habitual liars.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "Well I see you have given up trying to prove that you are human..."

    You are simply being silly now.

    "I also take your failure to rebut the two videos I posted, one having to do with Ukraine and another with Serbia, that you realize that the mass media deliberately and maliciously falsifies information, including “video proof”..."

    All you have done is link to sites that fit your worldview.

    "I think Washington Post is one of the most evil institutions on the planet today – war criminals, murderers, liars, warmongers, hatemongers, scum of the Earth. They are not journalists, they are liars and warmongers and war criminals. They are pure evil filth. If there were any justice in the world, the millions of victims of their lies, from Iraq to Libya to Serbia to countless other places, would have the right to sue them, and the World Criminal Court would criminally prosecute them. While hanging by the neck is the most just remedy, I would settle for life in prison, hard labor."

    Which you now have gone completely off the rails.

    "Provide another link to the story and I will read it."

    No, that is the site that contains evidence that refuted your claim. I'm not going down your rabbit hole.

    "What is astoundingly ignorant, and profoundly foolish, is to place trust in habitual liars."

    More projection on your part.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  105. @CalDre

    Yes, because it is not like Russia has space to retreat into.

     

    Yes, but they do not plan to retreat. They plan to nuke the invaders instead. Much better strategy.

    Of course if US were invaded, Americans would rather retreat from NY, LA, SF, Houston, Miami and D.C. than fight the aggressors. You see, Americans are a friendly folk, they don't like to hurt others.

    There aren’t many Americans in LA, SF, NYC, Houston, and Miami. We already retreated.

    Read More
    • LOL: CalDre
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  106. Corvinus says:
    @CalDre
    Well I see you have given up trying to prove that you are human, and conclude that your failure to substantiate the false accusations you made against me as an admission that, yes, you make false allegations. I also take your failure to rebut the two videos I posted, one having to do with Ukraine and another with Serbia, that you realize that the mass media deliberately and maliciously falsifies information, including "video proof", in order to manipulate people into illegal wars of aggression - i.e., that they are evil war criminals who deserve, under the Nuremberg principles, to be hung by the neck until dead, dead, dead.

    Of course I would never think that you would be big enough to admit it. It's beyond your character, which has more flaws than Windows 95. Instead, you make some stupid comment about my "projection", is that some pathetic effort to preserve your "dignity"? Because, well, Mr. AI-sheep-man, you don't have a shred of it, so you can give up on that hopeless endeavor.

    As to Washington Post, as a matter of policy, I do not visit their website, as that would be a page view and fall under the category of "support". I think Washington Post is one of the most evil institutions on the planet today - war criminals, murderers, liars, warmongers, hatemongers, scum of the Earth. They are not journalists, they are liars and warmongers and war criminals. They are pure evil filth. If there were any justice in the world, the millions of victims of their lies, from Iraq to Libya to Serbia to countless other places, would have the right to sue them, and the World Criminal Court would criminally prosecute them. While hanging by the neck is the most just remedy, I would settle for life in prison, hard labor.

    Provide another link to the story and I will read it. Much as I also hate the New York Times, I don't boycott that one. But as a general matter, why would anyone believe a bunch of liars trying to explain how honest they are? LOL.

    What is astoundingly ignorant, and profoundly foolish, is to place trust in habitual liars.

    “Well I see you have given up trying to prove that you are human…”

    You are simply being silly now.

    “I also take your failure to rebut the two videos I posted, one having to do with Ukraine and another with Serbia, that you realize that the mass media deliberately and maliciously falsifies information, including “video proof”…”

    All you have done is link to sites that fit your worldview.

    “I think Washington Post is one of the most evil institutions on the planet today – war criminals, murderers, liars, warmongers, hatemongers, scum of the Earth. They are not journalists, they are liars and warmongers and war criminals. They are pure evil filth. If there were any justice in the world, the millions of victims of their lies, from Iraq to Libya to Serbia to countless other places, would have the right to sue them, and the World Criminal Court would criminally prosecute them. While hanging by the neck is the most just remedy, I would settle for life in prison, hard labor.”

    Which you now have gone completely off the rails.

    “Provide another link to the story and I will read it.”

    No, that is the site that contains evidence that refuted your claim. I’m not going down your rabbit hole.

    “What is astoundingly ignorant, and profoundly foolish, is to place trust in habitual liars.”

    More projection on your part.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CalDre

    You are simply being silly now.
     
    No, I'm not, pay attention: you keep demanding, over and over, that others "prove" their claims. To you, a closed-minded person that replies to every claim with "projection", "confirmation bias", "dismissive", etc. I.e., you actually engage in constant hypocrisy and projection because it is you who project, who has confirmation bias, and who is dismissive. In fact your case is to extreme, you don't even, apparently, realize you are constantly critiquing yourself.

    The point of the "prove you're human" is to highlight to you that, if a listener is like you, and dismisses everything you say, you can't prove anything to them. Hence there is no point in trying to prove anything to you, you are utterly dismissive, biased, and everything else of which you accuse others. Yet you still demand "proof".

    All you have done is link to sites that fit your worldview.
     
    Hahahahaha! Yes, video evidence of warmongering fraud by the mass media is just that, is it? Like I said, it is impossible to prove anything to you. Not even a step-by-step video will convince you. Yet you demand proof. Again, proving what a despicable arsehole you are.

    Which you now have gone completely off the rails.
     
    No, I haven't. It is you who refuses to face reality, you do not see a Satanic war criminal where it stands. Washington Post is pure evil filth. They are as evil as it comes, pure, pure evil. I will not visit their site to "learn" anymore than I visit a Satanic Church to "learn", even though, Washington Post is vastly more evil than any Satanic Church.

    Well, I have conclusively established you are a supreme jerk, supremely ignorant, yet also supremely arrogant. I'm done toying with you. You are much to predictable and boring, too simply defeated, too blinded by your own arrogance, too overwhelmed by your ignorance and weak intellect, and too devoid of ethics or spirituality. Ciao!!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  107. Corvinus says:
    @Harold Smith
    "So anyone who fails to meet your definition of an honest person in this situation is NOT an honest person? Really?"

    Not quite; rather, anyone who can look at something which is painfully obvious and yet still deny it, is dishonest, yes. Really.

    "Wow, just wow."

    "Wow" is right. I left one qualification out of my statement because I felt it was impliedly obvious. Silly me, I should know by now that I can't do that in a discussion with you. So allow me to say it again:

    Any honest person with eyes to see [who has some idea of what the U.S. used to be a few decades ago and therefore has a basis for comparison] knows that the U.S. is going down. Period. The end.

    "'but one generally accepted indicator of the health of a society is life expectancy, and U.S. life expectancy is going down'

    Indeed. But let us offer some context and deeper analysis here."

    Seriously? The reason I used "life expectancy" as a metric for the health of a society, is because it is a *composite* representation; that is to say, it includes the direct and indirect effect of things like homicide, suicide, drug overdoses, effectiveness/affordability of health care, economic hardship, homelessness, etc., etc., etc. If "gun violence" increases in a society that's always had access to guns, then it is indicative of an emerging underlying societal problem. Do you follow?

    "However, Christian virtue was not the SOLE basis for ALL citizens of our nation at that time, nor 100 years ago, nor today. Against, people need not be Christian to espouse virtue, nor is Christian virtue the only, shall I say, 'worthwhile' virtue."

    I feel that headache coming back again. I think I might be allergic to strawmen. I better stop here.

    “Not quite; rather, anyone who can look at something which is painfully obvious and yet still deny it, is dishonest, yes. Really.”

    The problem here is you ASSUME it is, without question, painfully obvious. Anyone who YOU believe denies it, or does not admit to themselves, then fails to meet YOUR metric of honesty. However, people could actually disagree with you, and be honest and forthright in their assessment of the situation. Classic 101 SJW Sophistry on your part. Bravo.

    “Any honest person with eyes to see [who has some idea of what the U.S. used to be a few decades ago and therefore has a basis for comparison] knows that the U.S. is going down. Period. The end.”

    No, there is no “Period. The End” here. The U.S. a few decades ago also had similar issues. No doubt, people like yourself believed there was impending doom, yet it has not materialized in the way that it had been forecasted.

    Furthermore, “What the U.S. used to be a few decades ago” is vague. I am not going to make an educated guess as to what you mean, as it would come back to haunt me. Just state it clearly and concisely rather than talking in code.

    “The reason I used “life expectancy” as a metric for the health of a society, is because it is a *composite* representation…”

    A composite representation that must be broken down into its singular causes, with then an explanation how they play off of one another. The link I provided offers that context and deeper analysis compared to your source.

    “I feel that headache coming back again. I think I might be allergic to strawmen. I better stop here.”

    My statement was not intentionally misrepresenting one of your arguments. Rather, it was a point of clarification. Did you even bother to read Comment 99?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Harold Smith
    "The problem here is you ASSUME it is, without question, painfully obvious. Anyone who YOU believe denies it, or does not admit to themselves, then fails to meet YOUR metric of honesty. However, people could actually disagree with you, and be honest and forthright in their assessment of the situation. Classic 101 SJW Sophistry on your part. Bravo."

    Seriously? My "metric of honesty"? Is there any absurd length to which you won't go, to dispute a minor, inherently somewhat subjective point? Apparently not. I'll say it again: anyone who can look at something which is painfully obvious and yet still deny it, is dishonest. Period. The end.

    "No, there is no “Period. The End” here. The U.S. a few decades ago also had similar issues. No doubt, people like yourself believed there was impending doom, yet it has not materialized in the way that it had been forecasted."

    That the U.S. is in a state of serious decline is a self-evident fact. Every or almost every meaningful indicator of the health of this society is going in the wrong direction; everything from religious affiliations to SAT scores to single parent households to fertility rate to drug overdoses to confiscatory property taxation, to infrastructure deterioration, etc., you name it. Take obesity in the U.S. as an example. According to a recent study (reported by CNN):

    "The United States will not be escaping the obesity epidemic crisis anytime soon: Nearly 40% of adults and 19% of youth are obese, THE HIGHEST RATE THE COUNTRY HAS EVER SEEN IN ALL ADULTS, according to research released Friday by the National Center for Health Statistics.

    Since 1999, there has been a STAGGERING rise in the prevalence of obesity, particularly in adults, without any "signs of it slowing down," according to the study's lead researcher, Dr. Craig Hales, medical epidemiologist at the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention."

    https://www.cnn.com/2017/10/13/health/adult-obesity-increase-study/index.html

    Got that? We've NEVER been here before.

    Consider the loss of the U.S. military's "technological edge." How many times in the last 50 years has the U.S. military lost its technological edge to Russia and China? I would say never. Yet now it's happening or has already happened. Despite outspending Russia and China, despite the fact that Russia was basically on its knees after the collapse of the USSR, guess what? The corrupt U.S. government is losing the arms race that it started. The U.S. government cannot buy cost effective weapons with which to beat the world into submission for the same reason that U.S. citizens cannot get cost effective health care. Why? Because corruption is everywhere.

    Then there is the rise of the post 9/11 domestic police state, the accelerating loss of constitutional rights (witness the hysterical attack on the second amendment), and the reckless foreign policy that has needlessly brought us back to the most dangerous days of the cold war.

    Then of course there is the looming end of the petrodollar. It's happening; it's just a matter of time before the petroyuan replaces the petrodollar.

    And speaking about looming disaster, are you going to deny the impending underfunded pension crisis in the U.S.? It's real. It's happening.

    All of this isn't some kind of cyclic downturn; much or all of it is unprecedented. The U.S. is a failed state, caught in an irrevocable death spiral, all due to corruption, and no amount of your hand waving and dismissive rhetoric can change that obvious fact. Accept it.

    "'The reason I used 'life expectancy' as a metric for the health of a society, is because it is a *composite* representation…

    A composite representation that must be broken down into its singular causes, with then an explanation how they play off of one another. The link I provided offers that context and deeper analysis compared to your source."

    If you develop a fever of 102 degrees F, it means there's something wrong with you. You don't have to go to the hospital for tests to find out where the infection is to know that you're sick.
    Likewise, U.S. life-expectancy has declined, and you don't need to break it down and analyze it because regardless of whether it's obesity related mortality and/or drug overdoses and/or ineffective or unavailable health care or whatever, it points to a serious underlying societal problem, right?

    "My statement was not intentionally misrepresenting one of your arguments. Rather, it was a point of clarification."

    ROTFL!

    "Did you even bother to read Comment 99?"

    I glanced at it, but I didn't see anything relevant, so I didn't waste time with it.

    Now I'm seriously done with this pointless discussion.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  108. @peterAUS

    Ruthlessness alone will not suffice for victory because ruthlessness will start WW III.
     
    Don’t think so.

    You cannot have millions of civilian casualties – and that is what it will take – nowadays with cellphones recording every one of them.
     
    Millions? That’s one.

    The amount of anger will boil over and the US attacking forces will be attacked, by Russia, China, maybe even Turkey, Hezbolla, Syria, maybe even India and Pakistan.
     
    ..US forces will be attacked by Russia, China and…oh my God. That’s two.

    If Russia sinks US aircraft carriers that are conducting an unlawful attack against Iran, i.e., Russia acts to preserve international law and protects its ally, what will US do..
     
    OK. That’s three. I am out.

    “I am out.”

    Glad to hear it. While you’re out, why don’t you grab yourself more of what you’ve been smoking? Being one of the biggest laptop bombardiers on this site (no small feat!) must be very tiring for you, and so you’ve certainly earned the R&R.

    Read More
    • LOL: L.K
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  109. CalDre says:
    @Corvinus
    "Well I see you have given up trying to prove that you are human..."

    You are simply being silly now.

    "I also take your failure to rebut the two videos I posted, one having to do with Ukraine and another with Serbia, that you realize that the mass media deliberately and maliciously falsifies information, including “video proof”..."

    All you have done is link to sites that fit your worldview.

    "I think Washington Post is one of the most evil institutions on the planet today – war criminals, murderers, liars, warmongers, hatemongers, scum of the Earth. They are not journalists, they are liars and warmongers and war criminals. They are pure evil filth. If there were any justice in the world, the millions of victims of their lies, from Iraq to Libya to Serbia to countless other places, would have the right to sue them, and the World Criminal Court would criminally prosecute them. While hanging by the neck is the most just remedy, I would settle for life in prison, hard labor."

    Which you now have gone completely off the rails.

    "Provide another link to the story and I will read it."

    No, that is the site that contains evidence that refuted your claim. I'm not going down your rabbit hole.

    "What is astoundingly ignorant, and profoundly foolish, is to place trust in habitual liars."

    More projection on your part.

    You are simply being silly now.

    No, I’m not, pay attention: you keep demanding, over and over, that others “prove” their claims. To you, a closed-minded person that replies to every claim with “projection”, “confirmation bias”, “dismissive”, etc. I.e., you actually engage in constant hypocrisy and projection because it is you who project, who has confirmation bias, and who is dismissive. In fact your case is to extreme, you don’t even, apparently, realize you are constantly critiquing yourself.

    The point of the “prove you’re human” is to highlight to you that, if a listener is like you, and dismisses everything you say, you can’t prove anything to them. Hence there is no point in trying to prove anything to you, you are utterly dismissive, biased, and everything else of which you accuse others. Yet you still demand “proof”.

    All you have done is link to sites that fit your worldview.

    Hahahahaha! Yes, video evidence of warmongering fraud by the mass media is just that, is it? Like I said, it is impossible to prove anything to you. Not even a step-by-step video will convince you. Yet you demand proof. Again, proving what a despicable arsehole you are.

    Which you now have gone completely off the rails.

    No, I haven’t. It is you who refuses to face reality, you do not see a Satanic war criminal where it stands. Washington Post is pure evil filth. They are as evil as it comes, pure, pure evil. I will not visit their site to “learn” anymore than I visit a Satanic Church to “learn”, even though, Washington Post is vastly more evil than any Satanic Church.

    Well, I have conclusively established you are a supreme jerk, supremely ignorant, yet also supremely arrogant. I’m done toying with you. You are much to predictable and boring, too simply defeated, too blinded by your own arrogance, too overwhelmed by your ignorance and weak intellect, and too devoid of ethics or spirituality. Ciao!!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "Well, I have conclusively established you are a supreme jerk, supremely ignorant, yet also supremely arrogant. I’m done toying with you. You are much to predictable and boring, too simply defeated, too blinded by your own arrogance, too overwhelmed by your ignorance and weak intellect, and too devoid of ethics or spirituality."

    Again, more projection on your part, and now you added ad hominem attacks to your arsenal. Indeed, it is impossible for you to get out of your own ferris wheel of confirmation bias. Congratulations.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  110. @myself
    In 2003, when we decided to topple the Tikriti tribe (Saddam's tribe) from its position atop Iraq, the Iraqis, and the subsequent Iraqi insurgency, had ZERO outside backing. The Iraqis were completely on their own.
    Nonetheless, that war was and IS basically a failure, and took around 5,000 to 6,000 American lives (and countless maimed) from '03 to '11.

    What was that ancient saying that went something like "Tactics without Strategy is the noise and shouting before eventual Defeat".
    Exhibit A: Vietnam, exhibit B: Iraq '03 to '11, exhibit C: Afghanistan 2001 to eternity. And our proxies have lost in Syria.

    It just don't matter how awesome our military is, or how much battle dominance our men have, if we cannot CONVERT our battlefield success into lasting Victory.

    And as we've seen, we can't.

    Given that we are currently antagonizing BOTH Russia and China, who's to say that the Iranian state won't have indefinite supplies of both military and civilian goods to weather a storm of any duration?

    To this layman's mind, that spells U N W I N N A B L E

    Agree.
    These Pentagon “goons” here have no miltary knowledge at all.
    Only wishfull thinking and weed.
    STRATEGIC LEVEL :
    - Russia will never allow a US puppet state on the other side of the Caspian sea. That will expose its south front to much.
    - China will not allow , either its OBOR project smithered by the US and Iran is a key component of the OBOR strategy.
    Both will provide Iran will all the stuff necessary to destroy US invaders.
    TACTICAL/OPERATIONAL LEVEL :
    US strategy is always based on air power. But they will meet all kind of iranian, russian, chinese AA system available, Ss300, S400, Pantsir, Bavar 373,and so. Iranian air defence has capabilities to treat and destroy 200 targets at the same time.It will be ruthless, yes, wait for 200 or 300 US planes destroyed. And pilots taken prisoner to be paraded.
    Russian and China will not have to provide boots on the ground, the iranian army, 1million soldiers to begin with, and1.5 millions in less than 3 month has a sufficient level of forces to defeat any invasion.
    Even in case of US aggression is made by a ” coalition” , this colalition will not be able to gather more , at much, than 500 000 soldiers.
    The average ratio to attack is 1/3, in this case it will be 3 defenders/ 1 invader.
    A recipe to defeat.
    And don’t bet on massive desertions, iranian soldiers are tough, it will be a patriotic war, a war for survival and Iran has a 3000 year history.
    Note that iranian army is ” combat proven ” having wage a long conventional war against Iraq and a serious training in Syria these last 6 years both on conventional/guerilla type.
    Armchair general here have a tendancy to disregard what Iran can do as retaliation. Iran has about 5 000 short and medium range missiles, KSA and UAE will be erased, strait of Ormuz closed and the economic crisis following will “nuke ” the world economy.
    Matthis, Dunford, Kelly know that, as every serious military planner do worldwide.
    The conclusion of a strategic and tactical General Staff planning will be what you said : UNWINNABLE ( unless you engage 1 million US soldiers in it )

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  111. To complete :
    The idea that Iran will bow after a huge bombing campaing is beyond ridiculous, they will never.
    So a ground invasion is mandatory.
    I will not detail the logistic problemes such an invasion will meet.
    Everybody here can have a look at a map and draw his own conclusions, keeping in mind that the Ormuz strait will be close rapidly and that the only two line of supply are from Pakistan and Iraq.
    Don’t think Pakistan will join this war and Iraq will be an hostile country, at least.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CalDre
    In terms of a ground invasion, it is impossible. The IRGC has at least 1 million (lightly trained) men and women who are willing to "kamikaze" themselves to defend their country against an invasion by the Great Satan (a not entirely incorrect label, our own grandfathers would have considered us the "Great Satan" as well).

    On top of that, all of the IRGC units have been trained to operate without a head - i.e., each local unit can operate without instructions if C&C is cut off. These local units have hidden arms caches in numerous locations, including anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles, never mind about roadside bombs (and not the IED kind, but with shaped charges and remote detonation), etc. Iran has learned from 15 years of guerilla war in Afghanistan, Iraq, etc.

    Not to mention all the small boats, submersibles, cars, trucks, and, yes, drones out fitted with weapons, many of which can be operated by the 1 million volunteers..

    On top of that, they will, at a minimum, be heavily resupplied by allies. Many other allies, such as China, will, even if not militarily involved (though a certain amount of US barbarity might induce that as well), impose economic sanctions against the US. They could start by collapsing the dollar, depriving the MIC of its life-blood, ability to print fiat currency without consequence. Combined with huge oil prices - oil prices that may be priced, say, in Yuan instead of dollars - where will US get the yuan to buy oil and other imports, once the dollar loses its reserve status? It is a huge debtor nation. All it has is debts.

    Price of oil - what will it be after IRGC launches ballistic missiles that take out oil and LNG ports in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UAE, etc.? It takes years to rebuild these things. And Iran can have ballistic missiles hidden on standby to launch against them once they are rebuilt. A great deal of the world tanker capacity can be taken out in the first few days with ballistic missiles as well. And of course the Strait of Hormuz will be closed. What will that do to the US economy?

    One could go on and on. US has war-gamed a US-Iran war numerous times, and doesn't win.

    It is quite conceivable a war on Iran will result in the crumbling of the Empire. China and Russia are not adverse to that, and likely will do whatever they can to put an end to the Reign of Terror of the Evil Empire.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  112. CalDre says:
    @aleksandar
    To complete :
    The idea that Iran will bow after a huge bombing campaing is beyond ridiculous, they will never.
    So a ground invasion is mandatory.
    I will not detail the logistic problemes such an invasion will meet.
    Everybody here can have a look at a map and draw his own conclusions, keeping in mind that the Ormuz strait will be close rapidly and that the only two line of supply are from Pakistan and Iraq.
    Don't think Pakistan will join this war and Iraq will be an hostile country, at least.

    In terms of a ground invasion, it is impossible. The IRGC has at least 1 million (lightly trained) men and women who are willing to “kamikaze” themselves to defend their country against an invasion by the Great Satan (a not entirely incorrect label, our own grandfathers would have considered us the “Great Satan” as well).

    On top of that, all of the IRGC units have been trained to operate without a head – i.e., each local unit can operate without instructions if C&C is cut off. These local units have hidden arms caches in numerous locations, including anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles, never mind about roadside bombs (and not the IED kind, but with shaped charges and remote detonation), etc. Iran has learned from 15 years of guerilla war in Afghanistan, Iraq, etc.

    Not to mention all the small boats, submersibles, cars, trucks, and, yes, drones out fitted with weapons, many of which can be operated by the 1 million volunteers..

    On top of that, they will, at a minimum, be heavily resupplied by allies. Many other allies, such as China, will, even if not militarily involved (though a certain amount of US barbarity might induce that as well), impose economic sanctions against the US. They could start by collapsing the dollar, depriving the MIC of its life-blood, ability to print fiat currency without consequence. Combined with huge oil prices – oil prices that may be priced, say, in Yuan instead of dollars – where will US get the yuan to buy oil and other imports, once the dollar loses its reserve status? It is a huge debtor nation. All it has is debts.

    Price of oil – what will it be after IRGC launches ballistic missiles that take out oil and LNG ports in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UAE, etc.? It takes years to rebuild these things. And Iran can have ballistic missiles hidden on standby to launch against them once they are rebuilt. A great deal of the world tanker capacity can be taken out in the first few days with ballistic missiles as well. And of course the Strait of Hormuz will be closed. What will that do to the US economy?

    One could go on and on. US has war-gamed a US-Iran war numerous times, and doesn’t win.

    It is quite conceivable a war on Iran will result in the crumbling of the Empire. China and Russia are not adverse to that, and likely will do whatever they can to put an end to the Reign of Terror of the Evil Empire.

    Read More
    • Agree: bluedog
    • Replies: @aleksandar
    Thanks for your comment.
    I didn't adress the financial issue, because military is my core background , but you're right, if this war begin, who will be willing to buy US Tbonds ?
    " No money, no Swiss guards "
    Strait of Ormuz is an interesting point because, either when closed, US ships are in and all will be destroyed, either they are out and the possibility of ground invasion will be limited to a narrow desert strip of land south, far , far away from Teheran.
    Another point, all US military bases in Afghanistan are within the range of iranian missile Sayyed 1 and Sayyed 2.
    Bagram Air Base, Camp Dwyer, Camp Leatherneck , FOB Delaram.....15 000 US sitting ducks, KIA or WIA on the first day.
    , @myself
    It is not just the initial conventional NATO casualties that are problematic. Sure, the U.S. could lose quite a lot of ground troops in the conventional phase, but still end up sitting in Tehran possibly in say 6 months.

    No, the real issue we are facing is the near-certainty of a vicious insurgency with full foreign Great Power backing (the backers being Russia and China). Note that the Iraqi insurgency had ZERO foreign support and still took some 5,000 to 6,000 American lives, and wasn't defeated.

    In Afghanistan, we still haven't won, and I don't think we ever will. We have 100,000+ troops there now, and they will stay there FOREVER.

    They laughed at Shinseki when he said we could possibly pacify Iraq if we put 250,000 ground troops there over a very long period. Well, no one is laughing now.

    Are we going to miraculously make the Persians forget or discard their over 3,000 years of national identity? Are we going to entice them with the "allure of Western Civilization", making them accept armed foreign armies IN THEIR OWN HOMELAND?

    "Oh yes, be content with occupation! You're so LUCKY we don't kill you!" Sounds a lot like a street thug, saying to you "Hey, I'ma hit you whenever I feel like, and you'll take it because if you don't I'ma KILL you!" What normal person anywhere would bow down to that?

    It's almost absolutely certain we will face a bloody and EVERLASTING insurgency.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  113. @Corvinus
    "Not quite; rather, anyone who can look at something which is painfully obvious and yet still deny it, is dishonest, yes. Really."

    The problem here is you ASSUME it is, without question, painfully obvious. Anyone who YOU believe denies it, or does not admit to themselves, then fails to meet YOUR metric of honesty. However, people could actually disagree with you, and be honest and forthright in their assessment of the situation. Classic 101 SJW Sophistry on your part. Bravo.

    "Any honest person with eyes to see [who has some idea of what the U.S. used to be a few decades ago and therefore has a basis for comparison] knows that the U.S. is going down. Period. The end."

    No, there is no "Period. The End" here. The U.S. a few decades ago also had similar issues. No doubt, people like yourself believed there was impending doom, yet it has not materialized in the way that it had been forecasted.

    Furthermore, "What the U.S. used to be a few decades ago" is vague. I am not going to make an educated guess as to what you mean, as it would come back to haunt me. Just state it clearly and concisely rather than talking in code.

    "The reason I used “life expectancy” as a metric for the health of a society, is because it is a *composite* representation..."

    A composite representation that must be broken down into its singular causes, with then an explanation how they play off of one another. The link I provided offers that context and deeper analysis compared to your source.

    "I feel that headache coming back again. I think I might be allergic to strawmen. I better stop here."

    My statement was not intentionally misrepresenting one of your arguments. Rather, it was a point of clarification. Did you even bother to read Comment 99?

    “The problem here is you ASSUME it is, without question, painfully obvious. Anyone who YOU believe denies it, or does not admit to themselves, then fails to meet YOUR metric of honesty. However, people could actually disagree with you, and be honest and forthright in their assessment of the situation. Classic 101 SJW Sophistry on your part. Bravo.”

    Seriously? My “metric of honesty”? Is there any absurd length to which you won’t go, to dispute a minor, inherently somewhat subjective point? Apparently not. I’ll say it again: anyone who can look at something which is painfully obvious and yet still deny it, is dishonest. Period. The end.

    “No, there is no “Period. The End” here. The U.S. a few decades ago also had similar issues. No doubt, people like yourself believed there was impending doom, yet it has not materialized in the way that it had been forecasted.”

    That the U.S. is in a state of serious decline is a self-evident fact. Every or almost every meaningful indicator of the health of this society is going in the wrong direction; everything from religious affiliations to SAT scores to single parent households to fertility rate to drug overdoses to confiscatory property taxation, to infrastructure deterioration, etc., you name it. Take obesity in the U.S. as an example. According to a recent study (reported by CNN):

    “The United States will not be escaping the obesity epidemic crisis anytime soon: Nearly 40% of adults and 19% of youth are obese, THE HIGHEST RATE THE COUNTRY HAS EVER SEEN IN ALL ADULTS, according to research released Friday by the National Center for Health Statistics.

    Since 1999, there has been a STAGGERING rise in the prevalence of obesity, particularly in adults, without any “signs of it slowing down,” according to the study’s lead researcher, Dr. Craig Hales, medical epidemiologist at the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.”

    https://www.cnn.com/2017/10/13/health/adult-obesity-increase-study/index.html

    Got that? We’ve NEVER been here before.

    Consider the loss of the U.S. military’s “technological edge.” How many times in the last 50 years has the U.S. military lost its technological edge to Russia and China? I would say never. Yet now it’s happening or has already happened. Despite outspending Russia and China, despite the fact that Russia was basically on its knees after the collapse of the USSR, guess what? The corrupt U.S. government is losing the arms race that it started. The U.S. government cannot buy cost effective weapons with which to beat the world into submission for the same reason that U.S. citizens cannot get cost effective health care. Why? Because corruption is everywhere.

    Then there is the rise of the post 9/11 domestic police state, the accelerating loss of constitutional rights (witness the hysterical attack on the second amendment), and the reckless foreign policy that has needlessly brought us back to the most dangerous days of the cold war.

    Then of course there is the looming end of the petrodollar. It’s happening; it’s just a matter of time before the petroyuan replaces the petrodollar.

    And speaking about looming disaster, are you going to deny the impending underfunded pension crisis in the U.S.? It’s real. It’s happening.

    All of this isn’t some kind of cyclic downturn; much or all of it is unprecedented. The U.S. is a failed state, caught in an irrevocable death spiral, all due to corruption, and no amount of your hand waving and dismissive rhetoric can change that obvious fact. Accept it.

    “‘The reason I used ‘life expectancy’ as a metric for the health of a society, is because it is a *composite* representation…

    A composite representation that must be broken down into its singular causes, with then an explanation how they play off of one another. The link I provided offers that context and deeper analysis compared to your source.”

    If you develop a fever of 102 degrees F, it means there’s something wrong with you. You don’t have to go to the hospital for tests to find out where the infection is to know that you’re sick.
    Likewise, U.S. life-expectancy has declined, and you don’t need to break it down and analyze it because regardless of whether it’s obesity related mortality and/or drug overdoses and/or ineffective or unavailable health care or whatever, it points to a serious underlying societal problem, right?

    “My statement was not intentionally misrepresenting one of your arguments. Rather, it was a point of clarification.”

    ROTFL!

    “Did you even bother to read Comment 99?”

    I glanced at it, but I didn’t see anything relevant, so I didn’t waste time with it.

    Now I’m seriously done with this pointless discussion.

    Read More
    • Replies: @bluedog
    Very well stated,I think you touched on all points concerning the decline of the empire, except for the civil unrest that such a decline brings....
    , @Corvinus
    "Seriously? My “metric of honesty”?"

    It would seem to appear that your metric of honesty is squarely based on Christian virtue. Thus, anyone who lacks it in your estimation cannot be honest or exhibit honest tendencies. That is patently false.

    "I’ll say it again: anyone who can look at something which is painfully obvious and yet still deny it, is dishonest. Period. The end."

    Again, assuming that the something that a person is denying IS painfully obvious. Your sophistry apparently has no bounds.

    "That the U.S. is in a state of serious decline is a self-evident fact."

    I was not disputing that point. Rather, I was disputing your assertion that the United States is "going down" as a result of our problems. You can speculate,

    "The corrupt U.S. government is losing the arms race that it started."

    May be losing. Certainly we are at cross roads militarily in our nation.

    https://www.cnn.com/2017/11/29/politics/us-military-artificial-intelligence-russia-china/index.html

    And will only know IF that is accurate WHEN there is a full-fledged war.

    "The U.S. is a failed state, caught in an irrevocable death spiral, all due to corruption, and no amount of your hand waving and dismissive rhetoric can change that obvious fact."

    No, it is not a fact, it is a position you are taking.

    "are you going to deny the impending underfunded pension crisis in the U.S.?"

    That would be another strawman on your part. I never directly or indirectly stated otherwise.

    "I glanced at it, but I didn’t see anything relevant, so I didn’t waste time with it."

    You ought to carefully reexamine your decision.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  114. @CalDre
    In terms of a ground invasion, it is impossible. The IRGC has at least 1 million (lightly trained) men and women who are willing to "kamikaze" themselves to defend their country against an invasion by the Great Satan (a not entirely incorrect label, our own grandfathers would have considered us the "Great Satan" as well).

    On top of that, all of the IRGC units have been trained to operate without a head - i.e., each local unit can operate without instructions if C&C is cut off. These local units have hidden arms caches in numerous locations, including anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles, never mind about roadside bombs (and not the IED kind, but with shaped charges and remote detonation), etc. Iran has learned from 15 years of guerilla war in Afghanistan, Iraq, etc.

    Not to mention all the small boats, submersibles, cars, trucks, and, yes, drones out fitted with weapons, many of which can be operated by the 1 million volunteers..

    On top of that, they will, at a minimum, be heavily resupplied by allies. Many other allies, such as China, will, even if not militarily involved (though a certain amount of US barbarity might induce that as well), impose economic sanctions against the US. They could start by collapsing the dollar, depriving the MIC of its life-blood, ability to print fiat currency without consequence. Combined with huge oil prices - oil prices that may be priced, say, in Yuan instead of dollars - where will US get the yuan to buy oil and other imports, once the dollar loses its reserve status? It is a huge debtor nation. All it has is debts.

    Price of oil - what will it be after IRGC launches ballistic missiles that take out oil and LNG ports in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UAE, etc.? It takes years to rebuild these things. And Iran can have ballistic missiles hidden on standby to launch against them once they are rebuilt. A great deal of the world tanker capacity can be taken out in the first few days with ballistic missiles as well. And of course the Strait of Hormuz will be closed. What will that do to the US economy?

    One could go on and on. US has war-gamed a US-Iran war numerous times, and doesn't win.

    It is quite conceivable a war on Iran will result in the crumbling of the Empire. China and Russia are not adverse to that, and likely will do whatever they can to put an end to the Reign of Terror of the Evil Empire.

    Thanks for your comment.
    I didn’t adress the financial issue, because military is my core background , but you’re right, if this war begin, who will be willing to buy US Tbonds ?
    ” No money, no Swiss guards ”
    Strait of Ormuz is an interesting point because, either when closed, US ships are in and all will be destroyed, either they are out and the possibility of ground invasion will be limited to a narrow desert strip of land south, far , far away from Teheran.
    Another point, all US military bases in Afghanistan are within the range of iranian missile Sayyed 1 and Sayyed 2.
    Bagram Air Base, Camp Dwyer, Camp Leatherneck , FOB Delaram…..15 000 US sitting ducks, KIA or WIA on the first day.

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterAUS

    ...military is my core background...
     
    And you agree with

    -1 million (lightly trained) men and women who are willing to “kamikaze” themselves
    -all the small boats, submersibles, cars, trucks, and, yes, drones out fitted with weapons, many of which can be operated by the 1 million volunteers..
    -They could start by collapsing the dollar
    -A great deal of the world tanker capacity can be taken out in the first few days with ballistic missiles as well.
     
    Interesting.

    Strait of Ormuz is an interesting point because, either when closed, US ships are in and all will be destroyed, either they are out and the possibility of ground invasion will be limited to a narrow desert strip of land south, far , far away from Teheran.
     
    That is the only interesting point.
    It will require a ground invasion, but, combined with ruthless air campaign. Ruthless.
    Should it open the seaway, the problem is gone. All that's required then is just to keep bombing. In my view, Tehran will concede after some tome.

    And as I wrote before, the level of US/allies casualties is grossly overestimated.

    The regime in Tehran will very carefully wage a defensive war against the attacker. Very.......carefully.....
    They are aware should they go the way some people here believe, the retribution will be terrible.

    At the end of the day they do want to stay in power and preserve their regime. Should they go really hard against the attacker those chances will be nil.

    They'll fight very carefully, very...... defensively.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  115. bluedog says:
    @Harold Smith
    "The problem here is you ASSUME it is, without question, painfully obvious. Anyone who YOU believe denies it, or does not admit to themselves, then fails to meet YOUR metric of honesty. However, people could actually disagree with you, and be honest and forthright in their assessment of the situation. Classic 101 SJW Sophistry on your part. Bravo."

    Seriously? My "metric of honesty"? Is there any absurd length to which you won't go, to dispute a minor, inherently somewhat subjective point? Apparently not. I'll say it again: anyone who can look at something which is painfully obvious and yet still deny it, is dishonest. Period. The end.

    "No, there is no “Period. The End” here. The U.S. a few decades ago also had similar issues. No doubt, people like yourself believed there was impending doom, yet it has not materialized in the way that it had been forecasted."

    That the U.S. is in a state of serious decline is a self-evident fact. Every or almost every meaningful indicator of the health of this society is going in the wrong direction; everything from religious affiliations to SAT scores to single parent households to fertility rate to drug overdoses to confiscatory property taxation, to infrastructure deterioration, etc., you name it. Take obesity in the U.S. as an example. According to a recent study (reported by CNN):

    "The United States will not be escaping the obesity epidemic crisis anytime soon: Nearly 40% of adults and 19% of youth are obese, THE HIGHEST RATE THE COUNTRY HAS EVER SEEN IN ALL ADULTS, according to research released Friday by the National Center for Health Statistics.

    Since 1999, there has been a STAGGERING rise in the prevalence of obesity, particularly in adults, without any "signs of it slowing down," according to the study's lead researcher, Dr. Craig Hales, medical epidemiologist at the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention."

    https://www.cnn.com/2017/10/13/health/adult-obesity-increase-study/index.html

    Got that? We've NEVER been here before.

    Consider the loss of the U.S. military's "technological edge." How many times in the last 50 years has the U.S. military lost its technological edge to Russia and China? I would say never. Yet now it's happening or has already happened. Despite outspending Russia and China, despite the fact that Russia was basically on its knees after the collapse of the USSR, guess what? The corrupt U.S. government is losing the arms race that it started. The U.S. government cannot buy cost effective weapons with which to beat the world into submission for the same reason that U.S. citizens cannot get cost effective health care. Why? Because corruption is everywhere.

    Then there is the rise of the post 9/11 domestic police state, the accelerating loss of constitutional rights (witness the hysterical attack on the second amendment), and the reckless foreign policy that has needlessly brought us back to the most dangerous days of the cold war.

    Then of course there is the looming end of the petrodollar. It's happening; it's just a matter of time before the petroyuan replaces the petrodollar.

    And speaking about looming disaster, are you going to deny the impending underfunded pension crisis in the U.S.? It's real. It's happening.

    All of this isn't some kind of cyclic downturn; much or all of it is unprecedented. The U.S. is a failed state, caught in an irrevocable death spiral, all due to corruption, and no amount of your hand waving and dismissive rhetoric can change that obvious fact. Accept it.

    "'The reason I used 'life expectancy' as a metric for the health of a society, is because it is a *composite* representation…

    A composite representation that must be broken down into its singular causes, with then an explanation how they play off of one another. The link I provided offers that context and deeper analysis compared to your source."

    If you develop a fever of 102 degrees F, it means there's something wrong with you. You don't have to go to the hospital for tests to find out where the infection is to know that you're sick.
    Likewise, U.S. life-expectancy has declined, and you don't need to break it down and analyze it because regardless of whether it's obesity related mortality and/or drug overdoses and/or ineffective or unavailable health care or whatever, it points to a serious underlying societal problem, right?

    "My statement was not intentionally misrepresenting one of your arguments. Rather, it was a point of clarification."

    ROTFL!

    "Did you even bother to read Comment 99?"

    I glanced at it, but I didn't see anything relevant, so I didn't waste time with it.

    Now I'm seriously done with this pointless discussion.

    Very well stated,I think you touched on all points concerning the decline of the empire, except for the civil unrest that such a decline brings….

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  116. Sean says:
    @CalDre

    Historically Russia had had the space to win against more capable peoples eventually, and as that is their strength I would expect them to use it early and keep on using it.
     
    I agree, but once the invaders reach St. Petersburg or Moscow, game over. Russia will not let those cities be destroyed. Regardless of what you think (which I think is utterly wrong). Of course I do not think Russia would start with a nuclear attack on the invader's homeland - no, they will use tactical nukes to wipe out the invading army. If the invading army responds with tactical nukes and then again risks taking these two cities, then Russia would presumably launch tactical nukes at the invader's homeland. You know, there will be some escalation, I don't think it will go straight to a full exchange, but the escalation could happen pretty quickly.

    Anyway, why on Earth would anyone invade Russia, it has nothing the US or Europe wants.
     
    Seriously? It has tremendous resources - more oil than Saudi Arabia, more gas than Iran, more land than you can shake a stick at. Plus, if it's not obvious. the US and Europe are an Empire, they want to control the entire planet, as a matter of principle, and are willing to fight wars to accomplish that (and have been willing for centuries). The only reason they don't invade, now, is because of the nuclear deterrent, which you seem to indicate Russia should never use. LOL.

    Russia will not let those cities be destroyed. Regardless of what you think (which I think is utterly wrong). Of course I do not think Russia would start with a nuclear attack on the invader’s homeland – no, they will use tactical nukes to wipe out the invading army.

    If the US wanted to conquer Russia, destroying Moscow or St. Petersburg would seem counterproductive. If the Russia wanted to save their cities they would not use tactical nukes, because that would signal the begining of a tit for tat that would involve Russian cities being destroyed. Moreover, again, and again Russia could unfalsifiably attest to their willingness to nuke an enemy as soon as it crossed the Russian borders by having only token conventional forces., they don’t. The conventional weapons are not needed at all if you believe what you do, but through they theoretically could just nuke them, evey country is spending vasr sums of conventional weapons, whivh have a military purpose, unlike nuclear weapons, which ware .on wars cannot be fought that way,

    Russia is more irrelevant today than ever before. The US could have went to war with Soviets while they had no nuclear weapons. Russia has nothing that the US needs . Russian natural gas us by Europe could be replaced by America, and that is why they cannot switch off the pipline .

    The only reason they don’t invade, now, is because of the nuclear deterrent, which you seem to indicate Russia should never use. LOL.

    Nuclear weapons are a deterrent to nuclear war only. That is why Khrushchev was appalled at the US’s early sixties MLF idea of Germany being unified and with the right to be in on a decision to use nukes. Russia had enough nukes to stop a conventional attack; so what were they worried about. While it is possible that a nuclear war would start if the US invaded Russia, use of tactical nukes by Russia would be retaliated to and the after Russians cities were destroyed they would use strategic weapons on US cities. Far from Russian first use saving their cities, it would guarantee their destruction as welll as the enemies

    Read More
    • Replies: @bluedog
    Hell the Brits gamed attacking Russia after WW11 and even by arming the German prisoner's of war it was deemed a stupid idea, and along come Sean with another idiotic idea, you want to tackle the Bear with their weapons ,why don't you post something you may have an idea about, how about planting daisy's...!!
    , @CalDre

    If the US wanted to conquer Russia, destroying Moscow or St. Petersburg would seem counterproductive.
     
    Those are the seats of power. Unless you get there, you will not win the war. Ask Napoleon and Hitler if you doubt the obvious.

    If the Russia wanted to save their cities they would not use tactical nukes, because that would signal the begining of a tit for tat that would involve Russian cities being destroyed.
     
    That's your conclusion. If I were ruling Russia, I would absolutely use tactical nukes to defend from an invasion. Yes, you risk the other side also escalating - but, the other side has every bit as much to lose as you in doing so, and is in a far weaker moral and legal position. You are basically arguing one should surrender to terrorists because one might get hurt if one doesn't. But clearly one will get hurt if one does, too.

    Moreover, again, and again Russia could unfalsifiably attest to their willingness to nuke an enemy as soon as it crossed the Russian borders by having only token conventional forces., they don’t.
     
    Of course, using tactical nukes are a last resort. They will try to avoid that. Plus conventional forces are good for matters aside from defending from a more powerful invading army. Otherwise why does US have its army in Germany? Certainly that is not meant to defend against an invasion of the US, is it? Every country has a nuclear doctrine.

    Russia is more irrelevant today than ever before.
     
    Oh, wow, don't tell me, a US flag-waving moron. Everyone's irrelevant and nobody's irrelevant. The world would be MUCH better off without the US in it, so actually I think US is not irrelevant, just a force of great evil.

    That is why Khrushchev was appalled at the US’s early sixties MLF idea of Germany being unified
     
    There were many reasons for this having nothing to do with nuclear weapons or conventional war. US also wasn't willing to stop occupying West Germany, was it? And in fact today we see USSR does not exist, Russia is not occupying E. Germany, but US is still occupying W. Germany. Fact is USSR was not inclined to reduce its buffer zone against Western armed forces, from whom it suffered massively in two wars over 80 years or so. Would have been the same even if they had no conventional forces, or no nuclear forces, or none of either.

    Russia had enough nukes to stop a conventional attack; so what were they worried about.
     
    Again, nuclear weapons are of last resort. Under your theory, it is obvious nobody will ever use nukes (well, except the Yanks, they loved nuking a few hundred thousand civilians just for the kicks of it in the 1940s), so why have countries spent trillions building them? I see, it is to fool everybody (who, of course, like you, isn't fooled) into believing they will be used.

    While it is possible that a nuclear war would start if the US invaded Russia, use of tactical nukes by Russia would be retaliated to and the after Russians cities were destroyed they would use strategic weapons on US cities. Far from Russian first use saving their cities, it would guarantee their destruction as welll as the enemies
     
    Yes, but the very fact that in the end the US cities would also be destroyed, is what stops the US from invading in the first place. I agree it makes no sense for Russia to go from conventional straight to strategic nuclear, but the intermediate step of using tactical nukes and indicating very strongly that strategic comes next, that would give the invaders pause. And if they continue, it is they who have destroyed the world, not the defenders.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  117. peterAUS says:
    @aleksandar
    Thanks for your comment.
    I didn't adress the financial issue, because military is my core background , but you're right, if this war begin, who will be willing to buy US Tbonds ?
    " No money, no Swiss guards "
    Strait of Ormuz is an interesting point because, either when closed, US ships are in and all will be destroyed, either they are out and the possibility of ground invasion will be limited to a narrow desert strip of land south, far , far away from Teheran.
    Another point, all US military bases in Afghanistan are within the range of iranian missile Sayyed 1 and Sayyed 2.
    Bagram Air Base, Camp Dwyer, Camp Leatherneck , FOB Delaram.....15 000 US sitting ducks, KIA or WIA on the first day.

    …military is my core background…

    And you agree with

    -1 million (lightly trained) men and women who are willing to “kamikaze” themselves
    -all the small boats, submersibles, cars, trucks, and, yes, drones out fitted with weapons, many of which can be operated by the 1 million volunteers..
    -They could start by collapsing the dollar
    -A great deal of the world tanker capacity can be taken out in the first few days with ballistic missiles as well.

    Interesting.

    Strait of Ormuz is an interesting point because, either when closed, US ships are in and all will be destroyed, either they are out and the possibility of ground invasion will be limited to a narrow desert strip of land south, far , far away from Teheran.

    That is the only interesting point.
    It will require a ground invasion, but, combined with ruthless air campaign. Ruthless.
    Should it open the seaway, the problem is gone. All that’s required then is just to keep bombing. In my view, Tehran will concede after some tome.

    And as I wrote before, the level of US/allies casualties is grossly overestimated.

    The regime in Tehran will very carefully wage a defensive war against the attacker. Very…….carefully…..
    They are aware should they go the way some people here believe, the retribution will be terrible.

    At the end of the day they do want to stay in power and preserve their regime. Should they go really hard against the attacker those chances will be nil.

    They’ll fight very carefully, very…… defensively.

    Read More
    • Replies: @aleksandar
    Whisfull thinking and delusional
    1 - "At the end of the day they do want to stay in power and preserve their regime".
    You clearly have no idea of what the Iranian are.Just put your american mindset on other people. It's not about " regime" , it's about iranian people survival and that's exactly how iranian people will see it.
    2 - You only assert assumptions without relying to fact, ie balance of forces, capabilities and so. Typical civilian thinking. Should it open the seaway, the problem is gone For sure ! and how will you do that ? All that’s required then is just to keep bombing. OK, but having lost 200 jet the first 3 days, with what ?
    3 - I agree completely with
    -1 million (lightly trained) men and women who are willing to “kamikaze” themselves
    -all the small boats, submersibles, cars, trucks, and, yes, drones out fitted with weapons, many of which can be operated by the 1 million volunteers..

    But as a civilian you probably have never heard about Millenium 2002 and how Marine Corps Lieutenant General Paul K. Van Riper defeated the US Army.
    You should change you name " ChamanAUS " is more convenient as you only write incantations here.
    , @CalDre
    "Ruthless" air campaign means Russia sinks US aircraft carriers and blows up US airfields in the region.

    Not to mention intense world revolution against the ZioScum that rule the West.

    Then what?

    You think like a terrorist bully. Presumably, because you are a terrorist bully.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  118. Corvinus says:
    @Harold Smith
    "The problem here is you ASSUME it is, without question, painfully obvious. Anyone who YOU believe denies it, or does not admit to themselves, then fails to meet YOUR metric of honesty. However, people could actually disagree with you, and be honest and forthright in their assessment of the situation. Classic 101 SJW Sophistry on your part. Bravo."

    Seriously? My "metric of honesty"? Is there any absurd length to which you won't go, to dispute a minor, inherently somewhat subjective point? Apparently not. I'll say it again: anyone who can look at something which is painfully obvious and yet still deny it, is dishonest. Period. The end.

    "No, there is no “Period. The End” here. The U.S. a few decades ago also had similar issues. No doubt, people like yourself believed there was impending doom, yet it has not materialized in the way that it had been forecasted."

    That the U.S. is in a state of serious decline is a self-evident fact. Every or almost every meaningful indicator of the health of this society is going in the wrong direction; everything from religious affiliations to SAT scores to single parent households to fertility rate to drug overdoses to confiscatory property taxation, to infrastructure deterioration, etc., you name it. Take obesity in the U.S. as an example. According to a recent study (reported by CNN):

    "The United States will not be escaping the obesity epidemic crisis anytime soon: Nearly 40% of adults and 19% of youth are obese, THE HIGHEST RATE THE COUNTRY HAS EVER SEEN IN ALL ADULTS, according to research released Friday by the National Center for Health Statistics.

    Since 1999, there has been a STAGGERING rise in the prevalence of obesity, particularly in adults, without any "signs of it slowing down," according to the study's lead researcher, Dr. Craig Hales, medical epidemiologist at the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention."

    https://www.cnn.com/2017/10/13/health/adult-obesity-increase-study/index.html

    Got that? We've NEVER been here before.

    Consider the loss of the U.S. military's "technological edge." How many times in the last 50 years has the U.S. military lost its technological edge to Russia and China? I would say never. Yet now it's happening or has already happened. Despite outspending Russia and China, despite the fact that Russia was basically on its knees after the collapse of the USSR, guess what? The corrupt U.S. government is losing the arms race that it started. The U.S. government cannot buy cost effective weapons with which to beat the world into submission for the same reason that U.S. citizens cannot get cost effective health care. Why? Because corruption is everywhere.

    Then there is the rise of the post 9/11 domestic police state, the accelerating loss of constitutional rights (witness the hysterical attack on the second amendment), and the reckless foreign policy that has needlessly brought us back to the most dangerous days of the cold war.

    Then of course there is the looming end of the petrodollar. It's happening; it's just a matter of time before the petroyuan replaces the petrodollar.

    And speaking about looming disaster, are you going to deny the impending underfunded pension crisis in the U.S.? It's real. It's happening.

    All of this isn't some kind of cyclic downturn; much or all of it is unprecedented. The U.S. is a failed state, caught in an irrevocable death spiral, all due to corruption, and no amount of your hand waving and dismissive rhetoric can change that obvious fact. Accept it.

    "'The reason I used 'life expectancy' as a metric for the health of a society, is because it is a *composite* representation…

    A composite representation that must be broken down into its singular causes, with then an explanation how they play off of one another. The link I provided offers that context and deeper analysis compared to your source."

    If you develop a fever of 102 degrees F, it means there's something wrong with you. You don't have to go to the hospital for tests to find out where the infection is to know that you're sick.
    Likewise, U.S. life-expectancy has declined, and you don't need to break it down and analyze it because regardless of whether it's obesity related mortality and/or drug overdoses and/or ineffective or unavailable health care or whatever, it points to a serious underlying societal problem, right?

    "My statement was not intentionally misrepresenting one of your arguments. Rather, it was a point of clarification."

    ROTFL!

    "Did you even bother to read Comment 99?"

    I glanced at it, but I didn't see anything relevant, so I didn't waste time with it.

    Now I'm seriously done with this pointless discussion.

    “Seriously? My “metric of honesty”?”

    It would seem to appear that your metric of honesty is squarely based on Christian virtue. Thus, anyone who lacks it in your estimation cannot be honest or exhibit honest tendencies. That is patently false.

    “I’ll say it again: anyone who can look at something which is painfully obvious and yet still deny it, is dishonest. Period. The end.”

    Again, assuming that the something that a person is denying IS painfully obvious. Your sophistry apparently has no bounds.

    “That the U.S. is in a state of serious decline is a self-evident fact.”

    I was not disputing that point. Rather, I was disputing your assertion that the United States is “going down” as a result of our problems. You can speculate,

    “The corrupt U.S. government is losing the arms race that it started.”

    May be losing. Certainly we are at cross roads militarily in our nation.

    https://www.cnn.com/2017/11/29/politics/us-military-artificial-intelligence-russia-china/index.html

    And will only know IF that is accurate WHEN there is a full-fledged war.

    “The U.S. is a failed state, caught in an irrevocable death spiral, all due to corruption, and no amount of your hand waving and dismissive rhetoric can change that obvious fact.”

    No, it is not a fact, it is a position you are taking.

    “are you going to deny the impending underfunded pension crisis in the U.S.?”

    That would be another strawman on your part. I never directly or indirectly stated otherwise.

    “I glanced at it, but I didn’t see anything relevant, so I didn’t waste time with it.”

    You ought to carefully reexamine your decision.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Harold Smith
    "It would seem to appear that your metric of honesty is squarely based on Christian virtue. Thus, anyone who lacks it in your estimation cannot be honest or exhibit honest tendencies. That is patently false."

    There you go again, implying that "Christian virtue", e.g., trying to be honest with yourself and others, is some kind of esoteric, irrelevant, pie in the sky.

    "Again, assuming that the something that a person is denying IS painfully obvious. Your sophistry apparently has no bounds."

    There's nothing sophistic about the painfully obvious fact that in many if not most states, property taxes are spiralling out of control, with no end in sight, while real wages stagnate. There's nothing sophistic about the painfully obvious fact that health insurance premiums and co-payments are continually increasing, with no end in sight, while benefits decrease, while real wages stagnate. There's nothing sophistic about the painfully obvious fact that military spending is spiralling out of control, while the U.S. infrastructure deteriorates. There's nothing sophistic about the painfully obvious fact that the U.S. government is flirting with nuclear war, etc.

    "'That the U.S. is in a state of serious decline is a self-evident fact.'

    I was disputing your assertion that the United States is 'going down' as a result of our problems."

    By "going down", I meant that America's "serious decline" is irreversible. Simple observation and reasoning is all it takes to realize that, absent some kind of miraculous spiritual revival, America's internal problems are insoluble; they're terminal.

    So you agree with me that America is in a state of "serious decline" but you disagree with me that it's "going down"? That means you believe there is going to be some kind of "miracle" that is going to save America from its apparently insoluble problems? Please tell me, what miracle do you envision that is going to rescue America from the consequences of its own evil?

    "'The U.S. is a failed state, caught in an irrevocable death spiral, all due to corruption, and no amount of your hand waving and dismissive rhetoric can change that obvious fact.'

    No, it is not a fact, it is a position you are taking."

    It's a position I take because it's obvious. How can any sentient person paying attention come to any other conclusion? Just take a look around; you don't believe your own eyes?

    "'are you going to deny the impending underfunded pension crisis in the U.S.?'

    That would be another strawman on your part. I never directly or indirectly stated otherwise."

    According to the Rand corporation: "Nationally, state and local governments are carrying $4 trillion to $6 trillion in unfunded pension liabilities. That exceeds the combined military expenditures for every war, save World War II, fought by the U.S. since 1775."

    Is this massive, apparently insoluble problem, by itself, not enough to deem "America" a "failed state"? I believe it is; thus it is not a "strawman" per se, but it is an example of you contradicting yourself.

    "'I glanced at it, but I didn’t see anything relevant, so I didn’t waste time with it.'

    You ought to carefully reexamine your decision."

    Okay, it's still irrelevant cut and paste.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  119. bluedog says:
    @Sean

    Russia will not let those cities be destroyed. Regardless of what you think (which I think is utterly wrong). Of course I do not think Russia would start with a nuclear attack on the invader’s homeland – no, they will use tactical nukes to wipe out the invading army.
     
    If the US wanted to conquer Russia, destroying Moscow or St. Petersburg would seem counterproductive. If the Russia wanted to save their cities they would not use tactical nukes, because that would signal the begining of a tit for tat that would involve Russian cities being destroyed. Moreover, again, and again Russia could unfalsifiably attest to their willingness to nuke an enemy as soon as it crossed the Russian borders by having only token conventional forces., they don't. The conventional weapons are not needed at all if you believe what you do, but through they theoretically could just nuke them, evey country is spending vasr sums of conventional weapons, whivh have a military purpose, unlike nuclear weapons, which ware .on wars cannot be fought that way,

    Russia is more irrelevant today than ever before. The US could have went to war with Soviets while they had no nuclear weapons. Russia has nothing that the US needs . Russian natural gas us by Europe could be replaced by America, and that is why they cannot switch off the pipline .


    The only reason they don’t invade, now, is because of the nuclear deterrent, which you seem to indicate Russia should never use. LOL.
     
    Nuclear weapons are a deterrent to nuclear war only. That is why Khrushchev was appalled at the US's early sixties MLF idea of Germany being unified and with the right to be in on a decision to use nukes. Russia had enough nukes to stop a conventional attack; so what were they worried about. While it is possible that a nuclear war would start if the US invaded Russia, use of tactical nukes by Russia would be retaliated to and the after Russians cities were destroyed they would use strategic weapons on US cities. Far from Russian first use saving their cities, it would guarantee their destruction as welll as the enemies

    Hell the Brits gamed attacking Russia after WW11 and even by arming the German prisoner’s of war it was deemed a stupid idea, and along come Sean with another idiotic idea, you want to tackle the Bear with their weapons ,why don’t you post something you may have an idea about, how about planting daisy’s…!!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sean
    After WW2 John Von Nuemann and Bertand Russell advocated disarming the Soviet Union before it could get the Bomb. The proposal on those noted superbrains was the Soviets (who still had no nukes) were to be disarmed by America using, or threatening to use nuclear weapons.. Russia wasn't important enough to conquer then, it isn't now, and it won't be in the future. However there may be an analogous to nuke-less-Russia situation in the future, if the technological transfers from the West are halted.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  120. @Corvinus
    "Seriously? My “metric of honesty”?"

    It would seem to appear that your metric of honesty is squarely based on Christian virtue. Thus, anyone who lacks it in your estimation cannot be honest or exhibit honest tendencies. That is patently false.

    "I’ll say it again: anyone who can look at something which is painfully obvious and yet still deny it, is dishonest. Period. The end."

    Again, assuming that the something that a person is denying IS painfully obvious. Your sophistry apparently has no bounds.

    "That the U.S. is in a state of serious decline is a self-evident fact."

    I was not disputing that point. Rather, I was disputing your assertion that the United States is "going down" as a result of our problems. You can speculate,

    "The corrupt U.S. government is losing the arms race that it started."

    May be losing. Certainly we are at cross roads militarily in our nation.

    https://www.cnn.com/2017/11/29/politics/us-military-artificial-intelligence-russia-china/index.html

    And will only know IF that is accurate WHEN there is a full-fledged war.

    "The U.S. is a failed state, caught in an irrevocable death spiral, all due to corruption, and no amount of your hand waving and dismissive rhetoric can change that obvious fact."

    No, it is not a fact, it is a position you are taking.

    "are you going to deny the impending underfunded pension crisis in the U.S.?"

    That would be another strawman on your part. I never directly or indirectly stated otherwise.

    "I glanced at it, but I didn’t see anything relevant, so I didn’t waste time with it."

    You ought to carefully reexamine your decision.

    “It would seem to appear that your metric of honesty is squarely based on Christian virtue. Thus, anyone who lacks it in your estimation cannot be honest or exhibit honest tendencies. That is patently false.”

    There you go again, implying that “Christian virtue”, e.g., trying to be honest with yourself and others, is some kind of esoteric, irrelevant, pie in the sky.

    “Again, assuming that the something that a person is denying IS painfully obvious. Your sophistry apparently has no bounds.”

    There’s nothing sophistic about the painfully obvious fact that in many if not most states, property taxes are spiralling out of control, with no end in sight, while real wages stagnate. There’s nothing sophistic about the painfully obvious fact that health insurance premiums and co-payments are continually increasing, with no end in sight, while benefits decrease, while real wages stagnate. There’s nothing sophistic about the painfully obvious fact that military spending is spiralling out of control, while the U.S. infrastructure deteriorates. There’s nothing sophistic about the painfully obvious fact that the U.S. government is flirting with nuclear war, etc.

    “‘That the U.S. is in a state of serious decline is a self-evident fact.’

    I was disputing your assertion that the United States is ‘going down’ as a result of our problems.”

    By “going down”, I meant that America’s “serious decline” is irreversible. Simple observation and reasoning is all it takes to realize that, absent some kind of miraculous spiritual revival, America’s internal problems are insoluble; they’re terminal.

    So you agree with me that America is in a state of “serious decline” but you disagree with me that it’s “going down”? That means you believe there is going to be some kind of “miracle” that is going to save America from its apparently insoluble problems? Please tell me, what miracle do you envision that is going to rescue America from the consequences of its own evil?

    “‘The U.S. is a failed state, caught in an irrevocable death spiral, all due to corruption, and no amount of your hand waving and dismissive rhetoric can change that obvious fact.’

    No, it is not a fact, it is a position you are taking.”

    It’s a position I take because it’s obvious. How can any sentient person paying attention come to any other conclusion? Just take a look around; you don’t believe your own eyes?

    “‘are you going to deny the impending underfunded pension crisis in the U.S.?’

    That would be another strawman on your part. I never directly or indirectly stated otherwise.”

    According to the Rand corporation: “Nationally, state and local governments are carrying $4 trillion to $6 trillion in unfunded pension liabilities. That exceeds the combined military expenditures for every war, save World War II, fought by the U.S. since 1775.”

    Is this massive, apparently insoluble problem, by itself, not enough to deem “America” a “failed state”? I believe it is; thus it is not a “strawman” per se, but it is an example of you contradicting yourself.

    “‘I glanced at it, but I didn’t see anything relevant, so I didn’t waste time with it.’

    You ought to carefully reexamine your decision.”

    Okay, it’s still irrelevant cut and paste.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "There you go again, implying that “Christian virtue”, e.g., trying to be honest with yourself and others, is some kind of esoteric, irrelevant, pie in the sky."

    Yet another strawman on your part. Christian virtue is worthy...as are other virtues that people espouse.

    "There’s nothing sophistic about the painfully obvious fact that in many if not most states..."

    I wasn't referring to those trends as sophistry. I was referring to your insistence that Christian virtue is the end all and be all, and anyone who neglects to embrace is is other than honest and virtuous.

    "By “going down”, I meant that America’s “serious decline” is irreversible."

    Now you offer clarification. Do trends in current America indicate serious decline? Yes. Is it irreversible? No.

    "That means you believe there is going to be some kind of “miracle” that is going to save America from its apparently insoluble problems?"

    As I stated earlier, throughout our history America has experienced significant issues--see "Gilded Age". People at that time felt reforms could not "save" the United States. They were proven wrong. Again, for you to describe the problems as being insoluble, that would be an assertion on your part, not fact and certainly not truth.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  121. @peterAUS

    ...military is my core background...
     
    And you agree with

    -1 million (lightly trained) men and women who are willing to “kamikaze” themselves
    -all the small boats, submersibles, cars, trucks, and, yes, drones out fitted with weapons, many of which can be operated by the 1 million volunteers..
    -They could start by collapsing the dollar
    -A great deal of the world tanker capacity can be taken out in the first few days with ballistic missiles as well.
     
    Interesting.

    Strait of Ormuz is an interesting point because, either when closed, US ships are in and all will be destroyed, either they are out and the possibility of ground invasion will be limited to a narrow desert strip of land south, far , far away from Teheran.
     
    That is the only interesting point.
    It will require a ground invasion, but, combined with ruthless air campaign. Ruthless.
    Should it open the seaway, the problem is gone. All that's required then is just to keep bombing. In my view, Tehran will concede after some tome.

    And as I wrote before, the level of US/allies casualties is grossly overestimated.

    The regime in Tehran will very carefully wage a defensive war against the attacker. Very.......carefully.....
    They are aware should they go the way some people here believe, the retribution will be terrible.

    At the end of the day they do want to stay in power and preserve their regime. Should they go really hard against the attacker those chances will be nil.

    They'll fight very carefully, very...... defensively.

    Whisfull thinking and delusional
    1 - “At the end of the day they do want to stay in power and preserve their regime”.
    You clearly have no idea of what the Iranian are.Just put your american mindset on other people. It’s not about ” regime” , it’s about iranian people survival and that’s exactly how iranian people will see it.
    2 – You only assert assumptions without relying to fact, ie balance of forces, capabilities and so. Typical civilian thinking. Should it open the seaway, the problem is gone For sure ! and how will you do that ? All that’s required then is just to keep bombing. OK, but having lost 200 jet the first 3 days, with what ?
    3 – I agree completely with
    -1 million (lightly trained) men and women who are willing to “kamikaze” themselves
    -all the small boats, submersibles, cars, trucks, and, yes, drones out fitted with weapons, many of which can be operated by the 1 million volunteers..

    But as a civilian you probably have never heard about Millenium 2002 and how Marine Corps Lieutenant General Paul K. Van Riper defeated the US Army.
    You should change you name ” ChamanAUS ” is more convenient as you only write incantations here.

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterAUS

    For sure ! and how will you do that ?
     
    Land invasion of the area.

    ...having lost 200 jet the first 3 days...
     
    Disagree.
    Maybe 10, tops.

    ...you probably have never heard about Millenium 2002 and how Marine Corps Lieutenant General Paul K. Van Riper defeated the US Army.
     
    I have. That was just a staff exercise and a long time ago. Doesn't apply here.

    You appear to be proud of your extensive military background.
    Any chance of enlighting us here? Like, I am/was a low/middle/high ranking officer or NCO.
    Just that.
    Say, "I was a Major, combat arms". I'll believe you, for the starter.

    We could go from there.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  122. myself says:
    @CalDre
    In terms of a ground invasion, it is impossible. The IRGC has at least 1 million (lightly trained) men and women who are willing to "kamikaze" themselves to defend their country against an invasion by the Great Satan (a not entirely incorrect label, our own grandfathers would have considered us the "Great Satan" as well).

    On top of that, all of the IRGC units have been trained to operate without a head - i.e., each local unit can operate without instructions if C&C is cut off. These local units have hidden arms caches in numerous locations, including anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles, never mind about roadside bombs (and not the IED kind, but with shaped charges and remote detonation), etc. Iran has learned from 15 years of guerilla war in Afghanistan, Iraq, etc.

    Not to mention all the small boats, submersibles, cars, trucks, and, yes, drones out fitted with weapons, many of which can be operated by the 1 million volunteers..

    On top of that, they will, at a minimum, be heavily resupplied by allies. Many other allies, such as China, will, even if not militarily involved (though a certain amount of US barbarity might induce that as well), impose economic sanctions against the US. They could start by collapsing the dollar, depriving the MIC of its life-blood, ability to print fiat currency without consequence. Combined with huge oil prices - oil prices that may be priced, say, in Yuan instead of dollars - where will US get the yuan to buy oil and other imports, once the dollar loses its reserve status? It is a huge debtor nation. All it has is debts.

    Price of oil - what will it be after IRGC launches ballistic missiles that take out oil and LNG ports in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UAE, etc.? It takes years to rebuild these things. And Iran can have ballistic missiles hidden on standby to launch against them once they are rebuilt. A great deal of the world tanker capacity can be taken out in the first few days with ballistic missiles as well. And of course the Strait of Hormuz will be closed. What will that do to the US economy?

    One could go on and on. US has war-gamed a US-Iran war numerous times, and doesn't win.

    It is quite conceivable a war on Iran will result in the crumbling of the Empire. China and Russia are not adverse to that, and likely will do whatever they can to put an end to the Reign of Terror of the Evil Empire.

    It is not just the initial conventional NATO casualties that are problematic. Sure, the U.S. could lose quite a lot of ground troops in the conventional phase, but still end up sitting in Tehran possibly in say 6 months.

    No, the real issue we are facing is the near-certainty of a vicious insurgency with full foreign Great Power backing (the backers being Russia and China). Note that the Iraqi insurgency had ZERO foreign support and still took some 5,000 to 6,000 American lives, and wasn’t defeated.

    In Afghanistan, we still haven’t won, and I don’t think we ever will. We have 100,000+ troops there now, and they will stay there FOREVER.

    They laughed at Shinseki when he said we could possibly pacify Iraq if we put 250,000 ground troops there over a very long period. Well, no one is laughing now.

    Are we going to miraculously make the Persians forget or discard their over 3,000 years of national identity? Are we going to entice them with the “allure of Western Civilization”, making them accept armed foreign armies IN THEIR OWN HOMELAND?

    “Oh yes, be content with occupation! You’re so LUCKY we don’t kill you!” Sounds a lot like a street thug, saying to you “Hey, I’ma hit you whenever I feel like, and you’ll take it because if you don’t I’ma KILL you!” What normal person anywhere would bow down to that?

    It’s almost absolutely certain we will face a bloody and EVERLASTING insurgency.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  123. peterAUS says:
    @aleksandar
    Whisfull thinking and delusional
    1 - "At the end of the day they do want to stay in power and preserve their regime".
    You clearly have no idea of what the Iranian are.Just put your american mindset on other people. It's not about " regime" , it's about iranian people survival and that's exactly how iranian people will see it.
    2 - You only assert assumptions without relying to fact, ie balance of forces, capabilities and so. Typical civilian thinking. Should it open the seaway, the problem is gone For sure ! and how will you do that ? All that’s required then is just to keep bombing. OK, but having lost 200 jet the first 3 days, with what ?
    3 - I agree completely with
    -1 million (lightly trained) men and women who are willing to “kamikaze” themselves
    -all the small boats, submersibles, cars, trucks, and, yes, drones out fitted with weapons, many of which can be operated by the 1 million volunteers..

    But as a civilian you probably have never heard about Millenium 2002 and how Marine Corps Lieutenant General Paul K. Van Riper defeated the US Army.
    You should change you name " ChamanAUS " is more convenient as you only write incantations here.

    For sure ! and how will you do that ?

    Land invasion of the area.

    …having lost 200 jet the first 3 days…

    Disagree.
    Maybe 10, tops.

    …you probably have never heard about Millenium 2002 and how Marine Corps Lieutenant General Paul K. Van Riper defeated the US Army.

    I have. That was just a staff exercise and a long time ago. Doesn’t apply here.

    You appear to be proud of your extensive military background.
    Any chance of enlighting us here? Like, I am/was a low/middle/high ranking officer or NCO.
    Just that.
    Say, “I was a Major, combat arms”. I’ll believe you, for the starter.

    We could go from there.

    Read More
    • Replies: @bluedog
    Officers are dunber than shit regardless of the rank, for first they have to become brainwashed then turned into ass-kissers,the officer corp in Korea sucked and was worse as it went along,Nam Afghanistan Iraq where officers were changed like changing your socks, hoping beyond hope that you might find one with a brain, a plan that would work,they didn't...
    , @aleksandar
    Thanks for making me laughing out loud.
    You have clearly no military background.
    How will you do that ?
    "Land invasion "
    How will you do your land invasion ?
    " I push the button - Land invasion - "
    Gottseidank US planning officer I have worked with were more clever than you !
    Saying that just 10 jet will be downed when Iran AA can engage 200 target is just laughable.
    Go on repeating your propaganda, after all you're only deluding yourself.
    Good riddance !
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  124. CalDre says:
    @peterAUS

    ...military is my core background...
     
    And you agree with

    -1 million (lightly trained) men and women who are willing to “kamikaze” themselves
    -all the small boats, submersibles, cars, trucks, and, yes, drones out fitted with weapons, many of which can be operated by the 1 million volunteers..
    -They could start by collapsing the dollar
    -A great deal of the world tanker capacity can be taken out in the first few days with ballistic missiles as well.
     
    Interesting.

    Strait of Ormuz is an interesting point because, either when closed, US ships are in and all will be destroyed, either they are out and the possibility of ground invasion will be limited to a narrow desert strip of land south, far , far away from Teheran.
     
    That is the only interesting point.
    It will require a ground invasion, but, combined with ruthless air campaign. Ruthless.
    Should it open the seaway, the problem is gone. All that's required then is just to keep bombing. In my view, Tehran will concede after some tome.

    And as I wrote before, the level of US/allies casualties is grossly overestimated.

    The regime in Tehran will very carefully wage a defensive war against the attacker. Very.......carefully.....
    They are aware should they go the way some people here believe, the retribution will be terrible.

    At the end of the day they do want to stay in power and preserve their regime. Should they go really hard against the attacker those chances will be nil.

    They'll fight very carefully, very...... defensively.

    “Ruthless” air campaign means Russia sinks US aircraft carriers and blows up US airfields in the region.

    Not to mention intense world revolution against the ZioScum that rule the West.

    Then what?

    You think like a terrorist bully. Presumably, because you are a terrorist bully.

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor

    “Ruthless” air campaign means Russia sinks US aircraft carriers and blows up US airfields in the region.
     
    I disagree. Russia won’t attack the US, but it will supply arms to Iran.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  125. CalDre says:
    @Sean

    Russia will not let those cities be destroyed. Regardless of what you think (which I think is utterly wrong). Of course I do not think Russia would start with a nuclear attack on the invader’s homeland – no, they will use tactical nukes to wipe out the invading army.
     
    If the US wanted to conquer Russia, destroying Moscow or St. Petersburg would seem counterproductive. If the Russia wanted to save their cities they would not use tactical nukes, because that would signal the begining of a tit for tat that would involve Russian cities being destroyed. Moreover, again, and again Russia could unfalsifiably attest to their willingness to nuke an enemy as soon as it crossed the Russian borders by having only token conventional forces., they don't. The conventional weapons are not needed at all if you believe what you do, but through they theoretically could just nuke them, evey country is spending vasr sums of conventional weapons, whivh have a military purpose, unlike nuclear weapons, which ware .on wars cannot be fought that way,

    Russia is more irrelevant today than ever before. The US could have went to war with Soviets while they had no nuclear weapons. Russia has nothing that the US needs . Russian natural gas us by Europe could be replaced by America, and that is why they cannot switch off the pipline .


    The only reason they don’t invade, now, is because of the nuclear deterrent, which you seem to indicate Russia should never use. LOL.
     
    Nuclear weapons are a deterrent to nuclear war only. That is why Khrushchev was appalled at the US's early sixties MLF idea of Germany being unified and with the right to be in on a decision to use nukes. Russia had enough nukes to stop a conventional attack; so what were they worried about. While it is possible that a nuclear war would start if the US invaded Russia, use of tactical nukes by Russia would be retaliated to and the after Russians cities were destroyed they would use strategic weapons on US cities. Far from Russian first use saving their cities, it would guarantee their destruction as welll as the enemies

    If the US wanted to conquer Russia, destroying Moscow or St. Petersburg would seem counterproductive.

    Those are the seats of power. Unless you get there, you will not win the war. Ask Napoleon and Hitler if you doubt the obvious.

    If the Russia wanted to save their cities they would not use tactical nukes, because that would signal the begining of a tit for tat that would involve Russian cities being destroyed.

    That’s your conclusion. If I were ruling Russia, I would absolutely use tactical nukes to defend from an invasion. Yes, you risk the other side also escalating – but, the other side has every bit as much to lose as you in doing so, and is in a far weaker moral and legal position. You are basically arguing one should surrender to terrorists because one might get hurt if one doesn’t. But clearly one will get hurt if one does, too.

    Moreover, again, and again Russia could unfalsifiably attest to their willingness to nuke an enemy as soon as it crossed the Russian borders by having only token conventional forces., they don’t.

    Of course, using tactical nukes are a last resort. They will try to avoid that. Plus conventional forces are good for matters aside from defending from a more powerful invading army. Otherwise why does US have its army in Germany? Certainly that is not meant to defend against an invasion of the US, is it? Every country has a nuclear doctrine.

    Russia is more irrelevant today than ever before.

    Oh, wow, don’t tell me, a US flag-waving moron. Everyone’s irrelevant and nobody’s irrelevant. The world would be MUCH better off without the US in it, so actually I think US is not irrelevant, just a force of great evil.

    That is why Khrushchev was appalled at the US’s early sixties MLF idea of Germany being unified

    There were many reasons for this having nothing to do with nuclear weapons or conventional war. US also wasn’t willing to stop occupying West Germany, was it? And in fact today we see USSR does not exist, Russia is not occupying E. Germany, but US is still occupying W. Germany. Fact is USSR was not inclined to reduce its buffer zone against Western armed forces, from whom it suffered massively in two wars over 80 years or so. Would have been the same even if they had no conventional forces, or no nuclear forces, or none of either.

    Russia had enough nukes to stop a conventional attack; so what were they worried about.

    Again, nuclear weapons are of last resort. Under your theory, it is obvious nobody will ever use nukes (well, except the Yanks, they loved nuking a few hundred thousand civilians just for the kicks of it in the 1940s), so why have countries spent trillions building them? I see, it is to fool everybody (who, of course, like you, isn’t fooled) into believing they will be used.

    While it is possible that a nuclear war would start if the US invaded Russia, use of tactical nukes by Russia would be retaliated to and the after Russians cities were destroyed they would use strategic weapons on US cities. Far from Russian first use saving their cities, it would guarantee their destruction as welll as the enemies

    Yes, but the very fact that in the end the US cities would also be destroyed, is what stops the US from invading in the first place. I agree it makes no sense for Russia to go from conventional straight to strategic nuclear, but the intermediate step of using tactical nukes and indicating very strongly that strategic comes next, that would give the invaders pause. And if they continue, it is they who have destroyed the world, not the defenders.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sean
    The key point is that if everyone believes as you do, then there can be no invasion of Russia. Yes, but say there actually is a conventional attack on Russia from the West, and an invading army appears to be about to capture Moscow. The Russian decision to use tactical nukes would have been, if not predictable certainly a predictable possibility. Given that a conventional attack has happened the assumption must be that the invaders have pondered and decided to invade knowing they must be prepared to play nuke tit for tat, and the ball will be back in the Russians court. They are going to see the invaders tit for tat as excessive and counter retaliate with further escalation, and so on. It is important to realise that minus nukes, Russia was in this conventional position in 1941 and won eventually because it has strategic space. Why on Earth would it kick off nuclear mutual destruction rather than fight conventionally with a excellent prospect of winning in the end? Poland is still around even though it capitulated in WW2, why would any country chose immediate annihilation. The longer people thought about this the less likely it seemed. No one takes the idea of nuclear first use seriously any more.


    Enoch Powell:-

    Once you go nuclear at all, you go nuclear for good; and you know it. Here is the parting of the ways, for from this point two opposite conclusions can be drawn. One is that therefore there can never again be serious war of any duration between Western nations, including Russia—in particular, that there can never again be serious war on the Continent of Europe or the waters around it, which an enemy must master in order to threaten Britain. That is the Government's position. The other conclusion, therefore, is that resort is most unlikely to be had to nuclear weapons at all, but that war could nevertheless develop as if they did not exist, except of course that it would be so conducted as to minimise any possibility of misapprehension that the use of nuclear weapons was imminent or had begun.The crucial question is whether there is any stage of a European war at which any nation would choose self-annihiliation in preference to prolonging the struggle. The Secretary of State says, "Yes, the loser or likely loser would almost instantly choose self-annihiliation." I say, "No. The probability, though not the certainty, but surely at least the possibility, is that no such point would come, whatever the course of the conflict."
     
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  126. bluedog says:
    @peterAUS

    For sure ! and how will you do that ?
     
    Land invasion of the area.

    ...having lost 200 jet the first 3 days...
     
    Disagree.
    Maybe 10, tops.

    ...you probably have never heard about Millenium 2002 and how Marine Corps Lieutenant General Paul K. Van Riper defeated the US Army.
     
    I have. That was just a staff exercise and a long time ago. Doesn't apply here.

    You appear to be proud of your extensive military background.
    Any chance of enlighting us here? Like, I am/was a low/middle/high ranking officer or NCO.
    Just that.
    Say, "I was a Major, combat arms". I'll believe you, for the starter.

    We could go from there.

    Officers are dunber than shit regardless of the rank, for first they have to become brainwashed then turned into ass-kissers,the officer corp in Korea sucked and was worse as it went along,Nam Afghanistan Iraq where officers were changed like changing your socks, hoping beyond hope that you might find one with a brain, a plan that would work,they didn’t…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  127. Sean says:
    @CalDre

    If the US wanted to conquer Russia, destroying Moscow or St. Petersburg would seem counterproductive.
     
    Those are the seats of power. Unless you get there, you will not win the war. Ask Napoleon and Hitler if you doubt the obvious.

    If the Russia wanted to save their cities they would not use tactical nukes, because that would signal the begining of a tit for tat that would involve Russian cities being destroyed.
     
    That's your conclusion. If I were ruling Russia, I would absolutely use tactical nukes to defend from an invasion. Yes, you risk the other side also escalating - but, the other side has every bit as much to lose as you in doing so, and is in a far weaker moral and legal position. You are basically arguing one should surrender to terrorists because one might get hurt if one doesn't. But clearly one will get hurt if one does, too.

    Moreover, again, and again Russia could unfalsifiably attest to their willingness to nuke an enemy as soon as it crossed the Russian borders by having only token conventional forces., they don’t.
     
    Of course, using tactical nukes are a last resort. They will try to avoid that. Plus conventional forces are good for matters aside from defending from a more powerful invading army. Otherwise why does US have its army in Germany? Certainly that is not meant to defend against an invasion of the US, is it? Every country has a nuclear doctrine.

    Russia is more irrelevant today than ever before.
     
    Oh, wow, don't tell me, a US flag-waving moron. Everyone's irrelevant and nobody's irrelevant. The world would be MUCH better off without the US in it, so actually I think US is not irrelevant, just a force of great evil.

    That is why Khrushchev was appalled at the US’s early sixties MLF idea of Germany being unified
     
    There were many reasons for this having nothing to do with nuclear weapons or conventional war. US also wasn't willing to stop occupying West Germany, was it? And in fact today we see USSR does not exist, Russia is not occupying E. Germany, but US is still occupying W. Germany. Fact is USSR was not inclined to reduce its buffer zone against Western armed forces, from whom it suffered massively in two wars over 80 years or so. Would have been the same even if they had no conventional forces, or no nuclear forces, or none of either.

    Russia had enough nukes to stop a conventional attack; so what were they worried about.
     
    Again, nuclear weapons are of last resort. Under your theory, it is obvious nobody will ever use nukes (well, except the Yanks, they loved nuking a few hundred thousand civilians just for the kicks of it in the 1940s), so why have countries spent trillions building them? I see, it is to fool everybody (who, of course, like you, isn't fooled) into believing they will be used.

    While it is possible that a nuclear war would start if the US invaded Russia, use of tactical nukes by Russia would be retaliated to and the after Russians cities were destroyed they would use strategic weapons on US cities. Far from Russian first use saving their cities, it would guarantee their destruction as welll as the enemies
     
    Yes, but the very fact that in the end the US cities would also be destroyed, is what stops the US from invading in the first place. I agree it makes no sense for Russia to go from conventional straight to strategic nuclear, but the intermediate step of using tactical nukes and indicating very strongly that strategic comes next, that would give the invaders pause. And if they continue, it is they who have destroyed the world, not the defenders.

    The key point is that if everyone believes as you do, then there can be no invasion of Russia. Yes, but say there actually is a conventional attack on Russia from the West, and an invading army appears to be about to capture Moscow. The Russian decision to use tactical nukes would have been, if not predictable certainly a predictable possibility. Given that a conventional attack has happened the assumption must be that the invaders have pondered and decided to invade knowing they must be prepared to play nuke tit for tat, and the ball will be back in the Russians court. They are going to see the invaders tit for tat as excessive and counter retaliate with further escalation, and so on. It is important to realise that minus nukes, Russia was in this conventional position in 1941 and won eventually because it has strategic space. Why on Earth would it kick off nuclear mutual destruction rather than fight conventionally with a excellent prospect of winning in the end? Poland is still around even though it capitulated in WW2, why would any country chose immediate annihilation. The longer people thought about this the less likely it seemed. No one takes the idea of nuclear first use seriously any more.

    Enoch Powell:-

    [MORE]

    Once you go nuclear at all, you go nuclear for good; and you know it. Here is the parting of the ways, for from this point two opposite conclusions can be drawn. One is that therefore there can never again be serious war of any duration between Western nations, including Russia—in particular, that there can never again be serious war on the Continent of Europe or the waters around it, which an enemy must master in order to threaten Britain. That is the Government’s position. The other conclusion, therefore, is that resort is most unlikely to be had to nuclear weapons at all, but that war could nevertheless develop as if they did not exist, except of course that it would be so conducted as to minimise any possibility of misapprehension that the use of nuclear weapons was imminent or had begun.The crucial question is whether there is any stage of a European war at which any nation would choose self-annihiliation in preference to prolonging the struggle. The Secretary of State says, “Yes, the loser or likely loser would almost instantly choose self-annihiliation.” I say, “No. The probability, though not the certainty, but surely at least the possibility, is that no such point would come, whatever the course of the conflict.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @CalDre
    Under your theory of surrender to terrorists (like the US), Russia should never use nukes, even if it is losing. Because it is better to be a slave to the US, than not to live at all, no? And under that logic, US, realizing that it alone is a madman nuclear bomb user, and that Russia is rational, can be free to use tactical nukes as part of its invasion. Russia would be mortified to retaliate, since it might lose its cities. In fact, why even defend itself conventionally? Doesn't that also risk nuclear destruction?

    A similar "dilemna" faces each individual soldier, as so eloquently stated by Goering: "“Why, of course, the people don’t want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. "

    As an individual soldier you can go fight "for your country", but you risk losing your life; whereas, if you just let the invaders win, at worst you will be their slave. So under your "game theory", nobody should ever fight a war. Certainly not the invaders, as they have only their life to lose and nothing to gain. Yet, we see American soldiers going around the world, merrily murdering away, torturing away, oppressing away. So obviously your theory is not correct.

    Let me give you another analogy. Let's say some evil gang is invading your house. You have a choice: you have one weapon to use which will very likely stop them, though in retaliation there is a risk they may destroy your entire house (with you and your family in it) (but you think they won't because the result will be also it will destroy their house and people inside too); or, you can watch as they rape your wife and daughters and let them beat the shit out of you, maybe kill you, and from thereon out your family can be their slaves for the rest of their lives. I gather from your "logic" you would definitely choose the latter option. Yes, please, admit it for the world. I sure wouldn't. And neither would Russians. They would rather have their country destroyed - after destroying the invaders' countries and their families - then be slaves to the Evil Empire terrorist invaders.

    Anyway, Russia is far better suited than US to survive a nuclear exchange. They have huge underground bunkers, for the general population. US has bunkers but only for the evil, worthless ruling class, the ones who will have started that war that got everyone else killed. This class of evil do-nothings may be rich, but they could never run a society on their own. Where would their servants come from?

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  128. Sean says:
    @bluedog
    Hell the Brits gamed attacking Russia after WW11 and even by arming the German prisoner's of war it was deemed a stupid idea, and along come Sean with another idiotic idea, you want to tackle the Bear with their weapons ,why don't you post something you may have an idea about, how about planting daisy's...!!

    After WW2 John Von Nuemann and Bertand Russell advocated disarming the Soviet Union before it could get the Bomb. The proposal on those noted superbrains was the Soviets (who still had no nukes) were to be disarmed by America using, or threatening to use nuclear weapons.. Russia wasn’t important enough to conquer then, it isn’t now, and it won’t be in the future. However there may be an analogous to nuke-less-Russia situation in the future, if the technological transfers from the West are halted.

    Read More
    • Replies: @bluedog
    We have always had our eyes on Russia and its vast natural resources,we drooled over the billions trillions they could suck out of Russia, and THE ONLY thing that stopped them from invading Russia in the pass was a lack of balls and they still lack them today....,
    , @Sean
    What stopped them from exploiting those resources themselves and becoming the world's richest and most powerful state, eh?
    , @CalDre

    if the technological transfers from the West are halted
     
    What, you mean Russians can't use FuckBook or Scroogle any more to violate their privacy and sell all their data to the NSA/CIA? How sad for them!

    Russia doesn't need anything from the Evil Empire; it will be trading just fine with China, Japan, S. Korea, Vietnam, India, and the rest of the non-Evil world. Of course it would be nice for Russia to make friends with Germany, but, you see, Germany's a wild card, it may decide to kick out the occupying army at some point and regain its sovereignty. Clearly the traitor Merkel won't do it but AfD very well may.


    The proposal on those noted superbrains was the Soviets (who still had no nukes) were to be disarmed by America using, or threatening to use nuclear weapons.
     
    The US has been an oligarchic dictatorship for some time, and at that point the oligarchs still had hope USSR could be returned to rule by Jews for the goal of Global Bolshevik Dictatorship, which the Evil Empire continues to pursue day-in, day-out. They were wrong, of course, but that is why the "West" helped the USSR after the war, and certainly didn't consider attacking it. Your "noted luminaries" are entirely irrelevant to the decision-making process in the Evil Empire.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  129. Corvinus says:
    @CalDre

    You are simply being silly now.
     
    No, I'm not, pay attention: you keep demanding, over and over, that others "prove" their claims. To you, a closed-minded person that replies to every claim with "projection", "confirmation bias", "dismissive", etc. I.e., you actually engage in constant hypocrisy and projection because it is you who project, who has confirmation bias, and who is dismissive. In fact your case is to extreme, you don't even, apparently, realize you are constantly critiquing yourself.

    The point of the "prove you're human" is to highlight to you that, if a listener is like you, and dismisses everything you say, you can't prove anything to them. Hence there is no point in trying to prove anything to you, you are utterly dismissive, biased, and everything else of which you accuse others. Yet you still demand "proof".

    All you have done is link to sites that fit your worldview.
     
    Hahahahaha! Yes, video evidence of warmongering fraud by the mass media is just that, is it? Like I said, it is impossible to prove anything to you. Not even a step-by-step video will convince you. Yet you demand proof. Again, proving what a despicable arsehole you are.

    Which you now have gone completely off the rails.
     
    No, I haven't. It is you who refuses to face reality, you do not see a Satanic war criminal where it stands. Washington Post is pure evil filth. They are as evil as it comes, pure, pure evil. I will not visit their site to "learn" anymore than I visit a Satanic Church to "learn", even though, Washington Post is vastly more evil than any Satanic Church.

    Well, I have conclusively established you are a supreme jerk, supremely ignorant, yet also supremely arrogant. I'm done toying with you. You are much to predictable and boring, too simply defeated, too blinded by your own arrogance, too overwhelmed by your ignorance and weak intellect, and too devoid of ethics or spirituality. Ciao!!

    “Well, I have conclusively established you are a supreme jerk, supremely ignorant, yet also supremely arrogant. I’m done toying with you. You are much to predictable and boring, too simply defeated, too blinded by your own arrogance, too overwhelmed by your ignorance and weak intellect, and too devoid of ethics or spirituality.”

    Again, more projection on your part, and now you added ad hominem attacks to your arsenal. Indeed, it is impossible for you to get out of your own ferris wheel of confirmation bias. Congratulations.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  130. Corvinus says:
    @Harold Smith
    "It would seem to appear that your metric of honesty is squarely based on Christian virtue. Thus, anyone who lacks it in your estimation cannot be honest or exhibit honest tendencies. That is patently false."

    There you go again, implying that "Christian virtue", e.g., trying to be honest with yourself and others, is some kind of esoteric, irrelevant, pie in the sky.

    "Again, assuming that the something that a person is denying IS painfully obvious. Your sophistry apparently has no bounds."

    There's nothing sophistic about the painfully obvious fact that in many if not most states, property taxes are spiralling out of control, with no end in sight, while real wages stagnate. There's nothing sophistic about the painfully obvious fact that health insurance premiums and co-payments are continually increasing, with no end in sight, while benefits decrease, while real wages stagnate. There's nothing sophistic about the painfully obvious fact that military spending is spiralling out of control, while the U.S. infrastructure deteriorates. There's nothing sophistic about the painfully obvious fact that the U.S. government is flirting with nuclear war, etc.

    "'That the U.S. is in a state of serious decline is a self-evident fact.'

    I was disputing your assertion that the United States is 'going down' as a result of our problems."

    By "going down", I meant that America's "serious decline" is irreversible. Simple observation and reasoning is all it takes to realize that, absent some kind of miraculous spiritual revival, America's internal problems are insoluble; they're terminal.

    So you agree with me that America is in a state of "serious decline" but you disagree with me that it's "going down"? That means you believe there is going to be some kind of "miracle" that is going to save America from its apparently insoluble problems? Please tell me, what miracle do you envision that is going to rescue America from the consequences of its own evil?

    "'The U.S. is a failed state, caught in an irrevocable death spiral, all due to corruption, and no amount of your hand waving and dismissive rhetoric can change that obvious fact.'

    No, it is not a fact, it is a position you are taking."

    It's a position I take because it's obvious. How can any sentient person paying attention come to any other conclusion? Just take a look around; you don't believe your own eyes?

    "'are you going to deny the impending underfunded pension crisis in the U.S.?'

    That would be another strawman on your part. I never directly or indirectly stated otherwise."

    According to the Rand corporation: "Nationally, state and local governments are carrying $4 trillion to $6 trillion in unfunded pension liabilities. That exceeds the combined military expenditures for every war, save World War II, fought by the U.S. since 1775."

    Is this massive, apparently insoluble problem, by itself, not enough to deem "America" a "failed state"? I believe it is; thus it is not a "strawman" per se, but it is an example of you contradicting yourself.

    "'I glanced at it, but I didn’t see anything relevant, so I didn’t waste time with it.'

    You ought to carefully reexamine your decision."

    Okay, it's still irrelevant cut and paste.

    “There you go again, implying that “Christian virtue”, e.g., trying to be honest with yourself and others, is some kind of esoteric, irrelevant, pie in the sky.”

    Yet another strawman on your part. Christian virtue is worthy…as are other virtues that people espouse.

    “There’s nothing sophistic about the painfully obvious fact that in many if not most states…”

    I wasn’t referring to those trends as sophistry. I was referring to your insistence that Christian virtue is the end all and be all, and anyone who neglects to embrace is is other than honest and virtuous.

    “By “going down”, I meant that America’s “serious decline” is irreversible.”

    Now you offer clarification. Do trends in current America indicate serious decline? Yes. Is it irreversible? No.

    “That means you believe there is going to be some kind of “miracle” that is going to save America from its apparently insoluble problems?”

    As I stated earlier, throughout our history America has experienced significant issues–see “Gilded Age”. People at that time felt reforms could not “save” the United States. They were proven wrong. Again, for you to describe the problems as being insoluble, that would be an assertion on your part, not fact and certainly not truth.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Harold Smith
    "'There you go again, implying that “Christian virtue”, e.g., trying to be honest with yourself and others, is some kind of esoteric, irrelevant, pie in the sky.'

    Yet another strawman on your part. Christian virtue is worthy…as are other virtues that people espouse."

    Sorry but you're not making very much sense.

    "'There’s nothing sophistic about the painfully obvious fact that in many if not most states…'

    I wasn’t referring to those trends as sophistry. I was referring to your insistence that Christian virtue is the end all and be all, and anyone who neglects to embrace is is other than honest and virtuous."

    There you go again with another ridiculous strawman, implying that “Christian virtue”, e.g., trying to be honest with yourself and others, is some kind of esoteric, irrelevant, pie in the sky.

    As I said, anyone who can look at something that's painfully obvious, and yet still deny it, is being dishonest.

    Consider the example of intellectual dishonesty that you demonstrated earlier in this discussion. When I referred to you as an example to make the point that I have no control over your moral incompetence and your spiritual blindness, you protested that it was not a rhetorical example. You apparently took the position that I was somehow impugning your character. Yet even after I pointed out to you the quotation marks I used, and demonstrated the generally accepted usage of quotation marks to denote "not literally", you refused to cede the point.

    It was "painfully obvious" from the context of the statement I made and from the quotation marks that my statement was purely rhetorical, and yet you still refused to acknowledge it.

    Please explain in what sense of "virtue" your refusal to admit that you were incorrect should not be seen as dishonesty.

    "'By “going down”, I meant that America’s “serious decline” is irreversible.'

    Now you offer clarification."

    LOL! As if was not obvious.

    "Do trends in current America indicate serious decline? Yes. Is it irreversible? No."

    Well of course it's irreversible. That's one reason why they're trying to start a world war, for example. And being that it's painfully obviously irreversible, yet you refuse to admit it, you're being dishonest.

    "As I stated earlier, throughout our history America has experienced significant issues–see "Gilded Age'. People at that time felt reforms could not 'save' the United States. They were proven wrong. Again, for you to describe the problems as being insoluble, that would be an assertion on your part, not fact and certainly not truth."

    Of course I am certainly making an assertion. I assert that America is going down because of corruption, which is everywhere, and which is irreversible. And you are also making an assertion, but unlike my assertion, yours is a completely unfounded bare assertion. You're just being contrary.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  131. @CalDre
    "Ruthless" air campaign means Russia sinks US aircraft carriers and blows up US airfields in the region.

    Not to mention intense world revolution against the ZioScum that rule the West.

    Then what?

    You think like a terrorist bully. Presumably, because you are a terrorist bully.

    “Ruthless” air campaign means Russia sinks US aircraft carriers and blows up US airfields in the region.

    I disagree. Russia won’t attack the US, but it will supply arms to Iran.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CalDre
    I think the appeasement of US invasions, aggression, destruction, is at an end.

    It is simple calculation. US is picking off every single country that is not its vassal, one after another. Obviously Russia in on that list. And eventually it will be the target, too. Strategically, it is much better to sink the US war machine that is involved in a clearly unlawful war of aggression, when it still has allies, then to wait until the US has it completely surrounded with no allies left.

    You are not much of a strategic thinker, it seems. Cowardice does not always pay.
    , @Miro23


    @CalDre

    “Ruthless” air campaign means Russia sinks US aircraft carriers and blows up US airfields in the region.
     
    I disagree. Russia won’t attack the US, but it will supply arms to Iran.
     
    Russia won't attack the US, but there is the linkage Iran > Syria > Russia. If there was a Russian defensive commitment to Syria, there's logic for a Russian commitment to Iran. Without Iran, Russia looses Syria.

    One difference, is that in the Syrian war the US was using proxies (like it did in Libya), so US troops were not directly involved in ground battles. There aren't any proxies to do the fighting in Iran, so it's down to US forces, with "Regime Change" meaning ground troops.

    This a very big commitment for the US, posing military and political problems (Iran is a country of 80 million people and Trump was elected on no more ME wars) - so there almost inevitably has to be a major 9/11 style trigger to justify it - probably some fabricated attack on US military assets to set up the Iranians.

    It would be too risky to False Flag the Russians.

    As to the fighting itself, the US realistically can't occupy the whole of Iran, so it occupies the oil producing regions (across the Straits of Hormuz from Saudi Arabia), and runs an Iraqi style bombing campaign against the rest of the country - basically to destroy it. That would get control of Iranian oil and satisfy Israel, but at the same time, the US is weaker politically, economically and militarily than it was at the outset of the Iraq war, and there's the Russian involvement that was absent in Iraq.

    Altogether higher risk for the US than previous ME wars.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  132. CalDre says:
    @Sean
    The key point is that if everyone believes as you do, then there can be no invasion of Russia. Yes, but say there actually is a conventional attack on Russia from the West, and an invading army appears to be about to capture Moscow. The Russian decision to use tactical nukes would have been, if not predictable certainly a predictable possibility. Given that a conventional attack has happened the assumption must be that the invaders have pondered and decided to invade knowing they must be prepared to play nuke tit for tat, and the ball will be back in the Russians court. They are going to see the invaders tit for tat as excessive and counter retaliate with further escalation, and so on. It is important to realise that minus nukes, Russia was in this conventional position in 1941 and won eventually because it has strategic space. Why on Earth would it kick off nuclear mutual destruction rather than fight conventionally with a excellent prospect of winning in the end? Poland is still around even though it capitulated in WW2, why would any country chose immediate annihilation. The longer people thought about this the less likely it seemed. No one takes the idea of nuclear first use seriously any more.


    Enoch Powell:-

    Once you go nuclear at all, you go nuclear for good; and you know it. Here is the parting of the ways, for from this point two opposite conclusions can be drawn. One is that therefore there can never again be serious war of any duration between Western nations, including Russia—in particular, that there can never again be serious war on the Continent of Europe or the waters around it, which an enemy must master in order to threaten Britain. That is the Government's position. The other conclusion, therefore, is that resort is most unlikely to be had to nuclear weapons at all, but that war could nevertheless develop as if they did not exist, except of course that it would be so conducted as to minimise any possibility of misapprehension that the use of nuclear weapons was imminent or had begun.The crucial question is whether there is any stage of a European war at which any nation would choose self-annihiliation in preference to prolonging the struggle. The Secretary of State says, "Yes, the loser or likely loser would almost instantly choose self-annihiliation." I say, "No. The probability, though not the certainty, but surely at least the possibility, is that no such point would come, whatever the course of the conflict."
     

    Under your theory of surrender to terrorists (like the US), Russia should never use nukes, even if it is losing. Because it is better to be a slave to the US, than not to live at all, no? And under that logic, US, realizing that it alone is a madman nuclear bomb user, and that Russia is rational, can be free to use tactical nukes as part of its invasion. Russia would be mortified to retaliate, since it might lose its cities. In fact, why even defend itself conventionally? Doesn’t that also risk nuclear destruction?

    A similar “dilemna” faces each individual soldier, as so eloquently stated by Goering: ““Why, of course, the people don’t want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. ”

    As an individual soldier you can go fight “for your country”, but you risk losing your life; whereas, if you just let the invaders win, at worst you will be their slave. So under your “game theory”, nobody should ever fight a war. Certainly not the invaders, as they have only their life to lose and nothing to gain. Yet, we see American soldiers going around the world, merrily murdering away, torturing away, oppressing away. So obviously your theory is not correct.

    Let me give you another analogy. Let’s say some evil gang is invading your house. You have a choice: you have one weapon to use which will very likely stop them, though in retaliation there is a risk they may destroy your entire house (with you and your family in it) (but you think they won’t because the result will be also it will destroy their house and people inside too); or, you can watch as they rape your wife and daughters and let them beat the shit out of you, maybe kill you, and from thereon out your family can be their slaves for the rest of their lives. I gather from your “logic” you would definitely choose the latter option. Yes, please, admit it for the world. I sure wouldn’t. And neither would Russians. They would rather have their country destroyed – after destroying the invaders’ countries and their families – then be slaves to the Evil Empire terrorist invaders.

    Anyway, Russia is far better suited than US to survive a nuclear exchange. They have huge underground bunkers, for the general population. US has bunkers but only for the evil, worthless ruling class, the ones who will have started that war that got everyone else killed. This class of evil do-nothings may be rich, but they could never run a society on their own. Where would their servants come from?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  133. CalDre says:
    @reiner Tor

    “Ruthless” air campaign means Russia sinks US aircraft carriers and blows up US airfields in the region.
     
    I disagree. Russia won’t attack the US, but it will supply arms to Iran.

    I think the appeasement of US invasions, aggression, destruction, is at an end.

    It is simple calculation. US is picking off every single country that is not its vassal, one after another. Obviously Russia in on that list. And eventually it will be the target, too. Strategically, it is much better to sink the US war machine that is involved in a clearly unlawful war of aggression, when it still has allies, then to wait until the US has it completely surrounded with no allies left.

    You are not much of a strategic thinker, it seems. Cowardice does not always pay.

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    I don’t think starting a world war would be that beneficial to Russia. But we are not talking about what would be good for them. Rather, what will they do?

    And I don’t think they will attack the US. They will let Iran do the fighting and send weapons. Perhaps some volunteers, too. But no more.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  134. bluedog says:
    @Sean
    After WW2 John Von Nuemann and Bertand Russell advocated disarming the Soviet Union before it could get the Bomb. The proposal on those noted superbrains was the Soviets (who still had no nukes) were to be disarmed by America using, or threatening to use nuclear weapons.. Russia wasn't important enough to conquer then, it isn't now, and it won't be in the future. However there may be an analogous to nuke-less-Russia situation in the future, if the technological transfers from the West are halted.

    We have always had our eyes on Russia and its vast natural resources,we drooled over the billions trillions they could suck out of Russia, and THE ONLY thing that stopped them from invading Russia in the pass was a lack of balls and they still lack them today….,

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  135. Sean says:

    Under your theory of surrender to terrorists (like the US), Russia should never use nukes, even if it is losing.

    According to me, Russia should say it would use nukes and that is what Putin is doing. Tis a bluff just like Cold War Nato implying they would use nukes to stop o Soviet invasion of western Europe, which the Soviets never had any intention or plan for anyway. The armed forces may think differently, but they are dreaming and the order would not be given.

    What people do and what they say they will do (to frighten anyone from testing them) are different. Russia talks big because it is relatively weak and getting weaker. The US is secure and does not have to be strident. Neither one would use nukes, both could reasonably expect to fight and win any conventional attack on its homeland. War to conquer territory as Hitler tried is obsolete and Russia has nothing else but land, so no one is going to invade them for that reason. Russia must inevitably fall under the sway of America and become part of an alliance against the mega power that China is destined to become. China might slap the Russians down by a conventional offensive.
    Jeremy Black writes

    The vulnerability of the Russian Far East to Chinese attack from Manchuria makes the situation very different to operating into Siberia. For the Chinese, an advance overland to the Sea of Okhotsk in order to cut off the region, followed by the capture of Vladivostok might appear a tempting ‘small war’…

    There is not going to be any nuclear exchange because the US is not going to start one, and as already stated the US is not going to attack Russia with nukes under any circumstances. Kissinger was brought in to explain the facts of life to President Ray-gun, and Reagan was advised by Kissinger to never initiate the use of nuclear weapons.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    Interesting comment, as usual.

    But I'd firmly reject the notion that Russian has nothing but land. It's hard to understand this claim given the enormous proven reserves of oil, natural gas, and commercially/industrially valuable minerals in Russia.

    As for war as a means of gaining territory being obsolete, what exactly is Turkey doing right now in occupying part of Syria? Turkey surely wants to kill some battle-experienced Kurds, prevent the formation/continuation of a de facto Kurdish State near Turkey, and prevent the Kurds on the Syrian and Iraqi sides from linking up with the millions of Kurds living in Turkey.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  136. @peterAUS

    For sure ! and how will you do that ?
     
    Land invasion of the area.

    ...having lost 200 jet the first 3 days...
     
    Disagree.
    Maybe 10, tops.

    ...you probably have never heard about Millenium 2002 and how Marine Corps Lieutenant General Paul K. Van Riper defeated the US Army.
     
    I have. That was just a staff exercise and a long time ago. Doesn't apply here.

    You appear to be proud of your extensive military background.
    Any chance of enlighting us here? Like, I am/was a low/middle/high ranking officer or NCO.
    Just that.
    Say, "I was a Major, combat arms". I'll believe you, for the starter.

    We could go from there.

    Thanks for making me laughing out loud.
    You have clearly no military background.
    How will you do that ?
    “Land invasion “
    How will you do your land invasion ?
    ” I push the button – Land invasion – ”
    Gottseidank US planning officer I have worked with were more clever than you !
    Saying that just 10 jet will be downed when Iran AA can engage 200 target is just laughable.
    Go on repeating your propaganda, after all you’re only deluding yourself.
    Good riddance !

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterAUS

    How will you do your land invasion ?
     
    I'll tell you how I think US and allies might do it, after you

    Any chance of enlighting us here? Like, I am/was a low/middle/high ranking officer or NCO.
    Just that.
    Say, “I was a Major, combat arms”. I’ll believe you, for the starter.

     

    I got that you worked with somebody. That's nice. Girls, typists, do that. Catering staff too. You start striking me as such. Yeoman type.
    And

    We could go from there.
     
    So....ex-OF3, combat arms?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  137. @CalDre
    I think the appeasement of US invasions, aggression, destruction, is at an end.

    It is simple calculation. US is picking off every single country that is not its vassal, one after another. Obviously Russia in on that list. And eventually it will be the target, too. Strategically, it is much better to sink the US war machine that is involved in a clearly unlawful war of aggression, when it still has allies, then to wait until the US has it completely surrounded with no allies left.

    You are not much of a strategic thinker, it seems. Cowardice does not always pay.

    I don’t think starting a world war would be that beneficial to Russia. But we are not talking about what would be good for them. Rather, what will they do?

    And I don’t think they will attack the US. They will let Iran do the fighting and send weapons. Perhaps some volunteers, too. But no more.

    Read More
    • Replies: @dfordoom

    And I don’t think they will attack the US. They will let Iran do the fighting and send weapons. Perhaps some volunteers, too. But no more.
     
    And if the U.S. invasion of Iran is successful and Russia allows it to happen what does Russia do then? No ally will ever again trust Russia. Russia will be entirely isolated. Its remaining allies will be picked off one by one. Russia will be even more completely and even more closely encircled. Russia will be left with no options.

    If Russia allows that to happen they might just as well surrender now and allow the U.S. to occupy their country.

    I just can't see how Russia can allow Iran to fall and still expect to survive. At some point you have to demonstrate the willingness to fight. Appeasement only works against a rational reasonable enemy.

    I'm not suggesting the Russians will immediately start sinking American aircraft carriers but I do think that they will have to go a bit further than just sending arms. And if they send arms they may have to be prepared to be serious about it - they may have to supply things like the S-400. Arms that are sophisticated enough and deadly enough to act as a genuine deterrent. And if things go badly for Iran Russia will need to be prepared to escalate, to some extent at least.
    , @CalDre

    I don’t think starting a world war would be that beneficial to Russia.
     
    The world war has already started it, and the global aggressor, the USA, has been prosecuting it for 25 years. How many countries is the US currently invading?

    And it is also clear now that the US has started a cold war against Russia. It is only a matter of time until it turns hot. That time will come the moment the US thinks it can "win" the war. Because the world's chief war-maker, chief terrorist and chief evil-doer, the United States of America, will not stop its evil, ever, until someone forces it to. Because the United States of America has profound evil at its core, and the American sheeple are going to do nothing whatsoever to stop that evil.

    No, the point is, at some point the team that is on the Evil Empire's hit list has to unite and defend themselves jointly. Or why do you think NATO exists? Isn't z joint defense a better option than letting others attack you pick you off one at a time?

    If Russia took out an aircraft carrier that was illegally bombing Iran, at Iran's request, it would be acting lawfully and righteously. As well as intelligently. The Evil Empire cannot be appeased any longer. It is a danger to all humanity. It must be stopped. What better time to do it than when justice, law and strategy are on your side?

    Now, you think the US will attack Russia if Russia does that. That remains to be seen. Nobody has anything to gain by escalating after that, and it is possible the American sheeple will decide that a full-scale nuclear war is not worth it just to support the ignoble goal of Global Dictatorship by the Evil Empire.

    You see, the Evil Empire is not YET the all-powerful aggressor that you presume it to be. And that is exactly why Russia must draw the red line now.
    , @peterAUS
    From:

    They will let Iran do the fighting and send weapons.
     
    to:

    They will let Iran do the fighting, send some weapons and provide certain advice with selected intelligence.
     
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  138. dfordoom says: • Website
    @reiner Tor
    I don’t think starting a world war would be that beneficial to Russia. But we are not talking about what would be good for them. Rather, what will they do?

    And I don’t think they will attack the US. They will let Iran do the fighting and send weapons. Perhaps some volunteers, too. But no more.

    And I don’t think they will attack the US. They will let Iran do the fighting and send weapons. Perhaps some volunteers, too. But no more.

    And if the U.S. invasion of Iran is successful and Russia allows it to happen what does Russia do then? No ally will ever again trust Russia. Russia will be entirely isolated. Its remaining allies will be picked off one by one. Russia will be even more completely and even more closely encircled. Russia will be left with no options.

    If Russia allows that to happen they might just as well surrender now and allow the U.S. to occupy their country.

    I just can’t see how Russia can allow Iran to fall and still expect to survive. At some point you have to demonstrate the willingness to fight. Appeasement only works against a rational reasonable enemy.

    I’m not suggesting the Russians will immediately start sinking American aircraft carriers but I do think that they will have to go a bit further than just sending arms. And if they send arms they may have to be prepared to be serious about it – they may have to supply things like the S-400. Arms that are sophisticated enough and deadly enough to act as a genuine deterrent. And if things go badly for Iran Russia will need to be prepared to escalate, to some extent at least.

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterAUS
    Be that as it may, I don't think Russia will risk a serious conflict with USA in a case of seriously weakened regime in Tehran.
    Not fallen, simply seriously weakened. Say, put back 20 years. A serious air/standoff campaign could do it in, say, 3 months.
    Even with limited occupation of Hormuz the regime in Tehran could stay in power. Weakened as far as projecting power out, but, actually, with even stronger grip on power internally.

    Everybody happy?
    Except lower 80 % Iranians, of course. Middle class in particular.
    , @aleksandar
    But Iran can count on its 1,5 soldiers and probably 2 millions with all shiites coming from everywhere to help.
    That's enough in term of manpower.
    So Russia and China will provide weapons.
    Note that Iran has already the capacity to sink an US carrier, no need to ask the russian to do that.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  139. CalDre says:
    @reiner Tor
    I don’t think starting a world war would be that beneficial to Russia. But we are not talking about what would be good for them. Rather, what will they do?

    And I don’t think they will attack the US. They will let Iran do the fighting and send weapons. Perhaps some volunteers, too. But no more.

    I don’t think starting a world war would be that beneficial to Russia.

    The world war has already started it, and the global aggressor, the USA, has been prosecuting it for 25 years. How many countries is the US currently invading?

    And it is also clear now that the US has started a cold war against Russia. It is only a matter of time until it turns hot. That time will come the moment the US thinks it can “win” the war. Because the world’s chief war-maker, chief terrorist and chief evil-doer, the United States of America, will not stop its evil, ever, until someone forces it to. Because the United States of America has profound evil at its core, and the American sheeple are going to do nothing whatsoever to stop that evil.

    No, the point is, at some point the team that is on the Evil Empire’s hit list has to unite and defend themselves jointly. Or why do you think NATO exists? Isn’t z joint defense a better option than letting others attack you pick you off one at a time?

    If Russia took out an aircraft carrier that was illegally bombing Iran, at Iran’s request, it would be acting lawfully and righteously. As well as intelligently. The Evil Empire cannot be appeased any longer. It is a danger to all humanity. It must be stopped. What better time to do it than when justice, law and strategy are on your side?

    Now, you think the US will attack Russia if Russia does that. That remains to be seen. Nobody has anything to gain by escalating after that, and it is possible the American sheeple will decide that a full-scale nuclear war is not worth it just to support the ignoble goal of Global Dictatorship by the Evil Empire.

    You see, the Evil Empire is not YET the all-powerful aggressor that you presume it to be. And that is exactly why Russia must draw the red line now.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  140. peterAUS says:
    @aleksandar
    Thanks for making me laughing out loud.
    You have clearly no military background.
    How will you do that ?
    "Land invasion "
    How will you do your land invasion ?
    " I push the button - Land invasion - "
    Gottseidank US planning officer I have worked with were more clever than you !
    Saying that just 10 jet will be downed when Iran AA can engage 200 target is just laughable.
    Go on repeating your propaganda, after all you're only deluding yourself.
    Good riddance !

    How will you do your land invasion ?

    I’ll tell you how I think US and allies might do it, after you

    Any chance of enlighting us here? Like, I am/was a low/middle/high ranking officer or NCO.
    Just that.
    Say, “I was a Major, combat arms”. I’ll believe you, for the starter.

    I got that you worked with somebody. That’s nice. Girls, typists, do that. Catering staff too. You start striking me as such. Yeoman type.
    And

    We could go from there.

    So….ex-OF3, combat arms?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  141. peterAUS says:
    @reiner Tor
    I don’t think starting a world war would be that beneficial to Russia. But we are not talking about what would be good for them. Rather, what will they do?

    And I don’t think they will attack the US. They will let Iran do the fighting and send weapons. Perhaps some volunteers, too. But no more.

    From:

    They will let Iran do the fighting and send weapons.

    to:

    They will let Iran do the fighting, send some weapons and provide certain advice with selected intelligence.

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    You are an optimist (from the American/attacker point of view). The Russians certainly didn’t support Libya or Iran back then, but their policy would likely be different now. Since 2008, Putin has been convinced that the West is out there to get him (and Russia, which in his mind is probably the same thing). Russian policy was still relatively friendly to the US (like supporting the UNSC resolution against Libya), but it was only because 2008-12 Russian foreign policy was controlled by Medvedev, who was both a weak leader and a liberal, and wanted to create a positive image of himself in the West. The Libya resolution was almost immediately publicly criticized by Putin, and almost certainly led to his final decision to immediately return the presidency to himself in 2012.

    Another difference is that since 2015 Russia is deeply involved in the Syrian civil war. You might not realize, but they actually didn’t spend a lot of money there. But propping up Assad and his system costs a lot of money, roughly USD 10-15 billion annually. This money is provided by Iran. Should this dry up, Assad could be in serious trouble. Iran also provides a significant portion of the most effective ground troops in Syria. A sustained and hard campaign against Iran would almost certainly damage, worst case completely cut off this lifeline. (Logical: if Iran was in serious trouble, attacked at home, it’d have less money and military might to spend abroad.) This would in turn spell serious trouble for the Russians in Syria. And it’d make Putin more than a little bit angry. He’d probably start sending the aid to Assad himself. And he’d want to create trouble for the Americans attacking his important ally.

    So, I think it’s quite likely that Russia would be significantly more active in supporting Iran than most people suspect.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  142. peterAUS says:
    @dfordoom

    And I don’t think they will attack the US. They will let Iran do the fighting and send weapons. Perhaps some volunteers, too. But no more.
     
    And if the U.S. invasion of Iran is successful and Russia allows it to happen what does Russia do then? No ally will ever again trust Russia. Russia will be entirely isolated. Its remaining allies will be picked off one by one. Russia will be even more completely and even more closely encircled. Russia will be left with no options.

    If Russia allows that to happen they might just as well surrender now and allow the U.S. to occupy their country.

    I just can't see how Russia can allow Iran to fall and still expect to survive. At some point you have to demonstrate the willingness to fight. Appeasement only works against a rational reasonable enemy.

    I'm not suggesting the Russians will immediately start sinking American aircraft carriers but I do think that they will have to go a bit further than just sending arms. And if they send arms they may have to be prepared to be serious about it - they may have to supply things like the S-400. Arms that are sophisticated enough and deadly enough to act as a genuine deterrent. And if things go badly for Iran Russia will need to be prepared to escalate, to some extent at least.

    Be that as it may, I don’t think Russia will risk a serious conflict with USA in a case of seriously weakened regime in Tehran.
    Not fallen, simply seriously weakened. Say, put back 20 years. A serious air/standoff campaign could do it in, say, 3 months.
    Even with limited occupation of Hormuz the regime in Tehran could stay in power. Weakened as far as projecting power out, but, actually, with even stronger grip on power internally.

    Everybody happy?
    Except lower 80 % Iranians, of course. Middle class in particular.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CalDre
    There will be a righteous world war against the US.

    At some point you cannot let the US, the nuclear terrorist, the perennial warmonger and destroyer of worlds, continue to sodomize the planet and murder by the millions for kicks.

    At some point, people will stand up to this most Evil Empire.

    Iran will likely be the tipping point, if it happens. Maybe we will be lucky and even in the US the evil warmongers will finally face justice. Or maybe it will just be a massive economic collapse as the dollar loses its reserve status and US actually has to come up with something of value to trade. Maybe there will be global sanctions against the Evil Beast.

    Everybody happy?
    Except lower 95% USA citizens (and illegals), of course. Middle class in particular.

    And in the end, better a nuclear holocaust than that the Evil Empire obtain global dominion. "Better dead than Red", but now, the Red lives in the Evil Empire West.

    , @dfordoom

    Be that as it may, I don’t think Russia will risk a serious conflict with USA in a case of seriously weakened regime in Tehran.
     
    That's a different case. The Russians are unlikely to risk war as long as Iran is merely weakened.

    But do you seriously think the U.S. would be content merely to weaken Iran? They're obsessed with regime change. They won't be satisfied until they've turned Iran into a showcase of freedom and democracy, just like Libya and Iraq.

    To the neocons, and (sadly) to a lot of ordinary Americans, any war that doesn't end with regime change is a humiliating defeat.

    It's also worth asking if Israel would be satisfied with anything less than the complete destruction of Iran.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  143. CalDre says:
    @peterAUS
    Be that as it may, I don't think Russia will risk a serious conflict with USA in a case of seriously weakened regime in Tehran.
    Not fallen, simply seriously weakened. Say, put back 20 years. A serious air/standoff campaign could do it in, say, 3 months.
    Even with limited occupation of Hormuz the regime in Tehran could stay in power. Weakened as far as projecting power out, but, actually, with even stronger grip on power internally.

    Everybody happy?
    Except lower 80 % Iranians, of course. Middle class in particular.

    There will be a righteous world war against the US.

    At some point you cannot let the US, the nuclear terrorist, the perennial warmonger and destroyer of worlds, continue to sodomize the planet and murder by the millions for kicks.

    At some point, people will stand up to this most Evil Empire.

    Iran will likely be the tipping point, if it happens. Maybe we will be lucky and even in the US the evil warmongers will finally face justice. Or maybe it will just be a massive economic collapse as the dollar loses its reserve status and US actually has to come up with something of value to trade. Maybe there will be global sanctions against the Evil Beast.

    Everybody happy?
    Except lower 95% USA citizens (and illegals), of course. Middle class in particular.

    And in the end, better a nuclear holocaust than that the Evil Empire obtain global dominion. “Better dead than Red”, but now, the Red lives in the Evil Empire West.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  144. dfordoom says: • Website
    @peterAUS
    Be that as it may, I don't think Russia will risk a serious conflict with USA in a case of seriously weakened regime in Tehran.
    Not fallen, simply seriously weakened. Say, put back 20 years. A serious air/standoff campaign could do it in, say, 3 months.
    Even with limited occupation of Hormuz the regime in Tehran could stay in power. Weakened as far as projecting power out, but, actually, with even stronger grip on power internally.

    Everybody happy?
    Except lower 80 % Iranians, of course. Middle class in particular.

    Be that as it may, I don’t think Russia will risk a serious conflict with USA in a case of seriously weakened regime in Tehran.

    That’s a different case. The Russians are unlikely to risk war as long as Iran is merely weakened.

    But do you seriously think the U.S. would be content merely to weaken Iran? They’re obsessed with regime change. They won’t be satisfied until they’ve turned Iran into a showcase of freedom and democracy, just like Libya and Iraq.

    To the neocons, and (sadly) to a lot of ordinary Americans, any war that doesn’t end with regime change is a humiliating defeat.

    It’s also worth asking if Israel would be satisfied with anything less than the complete destruction of Iran.

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterAUS

    That’s a different case. The Russians are unlikely to risk war as long as Iran is merely weakened.
     
    Yup. Settled then.

    But do you seriously think the U.S. would be content merely to weaken Iran? They’re obsessed with regime change. They won’t be satisfied until they’ve turned Iran into a showcase of freedom and democracy, just like Libya and Iraq.
     
    Correct.

    First step: weaken Iran and get a lodgement into the territory, a foothold if you will. Stop. Consolidate.
    Use that to further weaken the regime, but without resorting to heavy warfare. Like Israel/Syria as we speak. Try to destabilize the regime and overthrow it from within.
    Should all that fails resort to the new open warfare.

    Conclusion:
    This episode lasts 3-6 months without going too bad (as said, except for lower 80 % of Iranian population).
    The next episode could start in 9 months....or 3 years/whatever.

    Russia would be rather keen on that actually.
    That effort, spent there, isn't being spent in Ukraine, for example. Then, that effort spends US/allies resources. Then, that effort buys Russia more time.
    What's not to like?

    Multidimensional chess masters and such. In this case...sacrifice a knight. King is safe, so no prob.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  145. peterAUS says:

    There will be a righteous world war against the US.

    Doubt it.

    At some point, people will stand up to this most Evil Empire.

    Could be.

    Iran will likely be the tipping point, if it happens.

    Don’t think Iran will.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  146. peterAUS says:
    @dfordoom

    Be that as it may, I don’t think Russia will risk a serious conflict with USA in a case of seriously weakened regime in Tehran.
     
    That's a different case. The Russians are unlikely to risk war as long as Iran is merely weakened.

    But do you seriously think the U.S. would be content merely to weaken Iran? They're obsessed with regime change. They won't be satisfied until they've turned Iran into a showcase of freedom and democracy, just like Libya and Iraq.

    To the neocons, and (sadly) to a lot of ordinary Americans, any war that doesn't end with regime change is a humiliating defeat.

    It's also worth asking if Israel would be satisfied with anything less than the complete destruction of Iran.

    That’s a different case. The Russians are unlikely to risk war as long as Iran is merely weakened.

    Yup. Settled then.

    But do you seriously think the U.S. would be content merely to weaken Iran? They’re obsessed with regime change. They won’t be satisfied until they’ve turned Iran into a showcase of freedom and democracy, just like Libya and Iraq.

    Correct.

    First step: weaken Iran and get a lodgement into the territory, a foothold if you will. Stop. Consolidate.
    Use that to further weaken the regime, but without resorting to heavy warfare. Like Israel/Syria as we speak. Try to destabilize the regime and overthrow it from within.
    Should all that fails resort to the new open warfare.

    Conclusion:
    This episode lasts 3-6 months without going too bad (as said, except for lower 80 % of Iranian population).
    The next episode could start in 9 months….or 3 years/whatever.

    Russia would be rather keen on that actually.
    That effort, spent there, isn’t being spent in Ukraine, for example. Then, that effort spends US/allies resources. Then, that effort buys Russia more time.
    What’s not to like?

    Multidimensional chess masters and such. In this case…sacrifice a knight. King is safe, so no prob.

    Read More
    • Replies: @myself
    A plausible scenario, certainly.

    On problem, though. How big a "lodgement" are we talking?

    It has to be large enough to "weaken" Iran. Guantanamo-sized won't cut it. I mention Guantanamo in Cuba, because it's so small (it's what, ~45 square miles? TINY) that there isn't a significant insurgency problem inside the lodgement.

    Conversely, it does not weaken Cuba either. Humiliates them perhaps, but not weaken.

    OTOH, an occupied zone that might weaken Iran would have to be quite . . . extensive. Similar to say, South Vietnam in relation to all of Vietnam. Well, let's be generous and say you occupy only 1/3 of Iran, not half.

    But then a zone that large, enough to affect Iran, will result in an insurgency, probably a foreign-supported one. Plus the almost guaranteed conventional build-up of the rump Iranian state's military power - supplied by Russia (officially) and probably China (unofficially), of course.

    So, conventional NATO troops would stay there forever as shield against Iran's conventional army, plus have to wage counter-insurgency, also indefinitely.

    Now, you COULD postulate an Afghanistan scenario - that NATO would keep an army in Iran for say 40 years (Afghanistan has not really stopped fighting since 1980). Bad analogy though, since there's no end in sight for the Afghan War, and that's with only Pakistani support for the Mujaheddin.

    Now imagine them with Great Power backing.
    , @Sean
    The Russians are committed in the Ukraine and serious support for the Iranian Regime would see the US giving crucial extra backing to the Ukrainian government forces.

    US program for crushing Iran
    Phase one: They will start with limited raids on suspected nuclear facilities to humiliate Iran, and extreme sanctions that will destroy the prospects of the disproportionately young middle class, thus creating discontent.

    Phase two: Covert military action against Iran will be designed to humiliate it and splinter minority statelets off of it (Iran is not immune to this).

    Phase three: The leaders of Iran having been made to look totally unable to uphold the integrity of the country or provide a standard of living for its population, an uprising will start.

    Phase four: To protect innocent civilians, the US will intervene and destroy the Iranian armed forces.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  147. Generals, start your armchairs!

    Read More
    • LOL: RadicalCenter
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  148. Miro23 says:

    Trump himself has pledged to walk away from the Iran nuclear deal — “the worst deal ever” — and re-impose sanctions in May.

    His new national security adviser John Bolton, who wrote an op-ed titled “To Stop Iran’s Bomb, Bomb Iran,” has called for preemptive strikes and “regime change.”

    Many commenters here seem to be living in the past. The USA today is a Jewish run affair, and in many ways an extension of Israel, so the question has to be what Jewish interests want, and what are their priorities – with everything following from that.

    A short list would include:

    - Israeli security through the destruction of all countries nearby with any power or influence (Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya, Egypt?)

    - Extending Israeli dominion over the Middle East and Middle East oil (e.g. the Saudi model + the destruction of Iraq and Libya)

    - Attacking allies and supporters of their Middle East targets (e.g. primarily Russia)

    - Funneling the US economy and military towards realizing these goals.

    - Neutralize US domestic opposition through propaganda, racial division, NSA, purchase and blackmail of politicians, attacks on non-Jewish traditions + exclusion of Anglos from key positions of power.

    The relationship of Jews and Gentiles in the US has some similarities to the British and Indians in old Imperial India. The British colonial elite had an administration that integrated British and Indian civil servants (although headed by the British) and the British were on good terms with the Indian elite (Indian princes) who had autonomy – while of course recognizing British suzerainty.

    The Indian Empire ( the “Jewel in the Crown”) was an economic/political project aimed at building British power, the same as the United States is an economic/political project aimed at building Israeli/Jewish power.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  149. @peterAUS
    From:

    They will let Iran do the fighting and send weapons.
     
    to:

    They will let Iran do the fighting, send some weapons and provide certain advice with selected intelligence.
     

    You are an optimist (from the American/attacker point of view). The Russians certainly didn’t support Libya or Iran back then, but their policy would likely be different now. Since 2008, Putin has been convinced that the West is out there to get him (and Russia, which in his mind is probably the same thing). Russian policy was still relatively friendly to the US (like supporting the UNSC resolution against Libya), but it was only because 2008-12 Russian foreign policy was controlled by Medvedev, who was both a weak leader and a liberal, and wanted to create a positive image of himself in the West. The Libya resolution was almost immediately publicly criticized by Putin, and almost certainly led to his final decision to immediately return the presidency to himself in 2012.

    Another difference is that since 2015 Russia is deeply involved in the Syrian civil war. You might not realize, but they actually didn’t spend a lot of money there. But propping up Assad and his system costs a lot of money, roughly USD 10-15 billion annually. This money is provided by Iran. Should this dry up, Assad could be in serious trouble. Iran also provides a significant portion of the most effective ground troops in Syria. A sustained and hard campaign against Iran would almost certainly damage, worst case completely cut off this lifeline. (Logical: if Iran was in serious trouble, attacked at home, it’d have less money and military might to spend abroad.) This would in turn spell serious trouble for the Russians in Syria. And it’d make Putin more than a little bit angry. He’d probably start sending the aid to Assad himself. And he’d want to create trouble for the Americans attacking his important ally.

    So, I think it’s quite likely that Russia would be significantly more active in supporting Iran than most people suspect.

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterAUS

    He’d probably start sending the aid to Assad himself. And he’d want to create trouble for the Americans attacking his important ally.
     
    Agree.

    So, I think it’s quite likely that Russia would be significantly more active in supporting Iran than most people suspect.
     
    Don't know what most people suspect but I believe:"providing political support, limited intelligence, certain not too advanced weapons systems in limited quantity and technical assistance".

    I know that people want to believe that, this time, Russia/China/whatever will finally put a stop on "all that". Makes life more bearable.
    Creates constant disappointment, though.

    The only element which could stop this process is American public, or, better, the losers in this game.
    And that, I am afraid, forces some other uncomfortable realities onto minority willing to think.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  150. @dfordoom

    And I don’t think they will attack the US. They will let Iran do the fighting and send weapons. Perhaps some volunteers, too. But no more.
     
    And if the U.S. invasion of Iran is successful and Russia allows it to happen what does Russia do then? No ally will ever again trust Russia. Russia will be entirely isolated. Its remaining allies will be picked off one by one. Russia will be even more completely and even more closely encircled. Russia will be left with no options.

    If Russia allows that to happen they might just as well surrender now and allow the U.S. to occupy their country.

    I just can't see how Russia can allow Iran to fall and still expect to survive. At some point you have to demonstrate the willingness to fight. Appeasement only works against a rational reasonable enemy.

    I'm not suggesting the Russians will immediately start sinking American aircraft carriers but I do think that they will have to go a bit further than just sending arms. And if they send arms they may have to be prepared to be serious about it - they may have to supply things like the S-400. Arms that are sophisticated enough and deadly enough to act as a genuine deterrent. And if things go badly for Iran Russia will need to be prepared to escalate, to some extent at least.

    But Iran can count on its 1,5 soldiers and probably 2 millions with all shiites coming from everywhere to help.
    That’s enough in term of manpower.
    So Russia and China will provide weapons.
    Note that Iran has already the capacity to sink an US carrier, no need to ask the russian to do that.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  151. peterAUS says:
    @reiner Tor
    You are an optimist (from the American/attacker point of view). The Russians certainly didn’t support Libya or Iran back then, but their policy would likely be different now. Since 2008, Putin has been convinced that the West is out there to get him (and Russia, which in his mind is probably the same thing). Russian policy was still relatively friendly to the US (like supporting the UNSC resolution against Libya), but it was only because 2008-12 Russian foreign policy was controlled by Medvedev, who was both a weak leader and a liberal, and wanted to create a positive image of himself in the West. The Libya resolution was almost immediately publicly criticized by Putin, and almost certainly led to his final decision to immediately return the presidency to himself in 2012.

    Another difference is that since 2015 Russia is deeply involved in the Syrian civil war. You might not realize, but they actually didn’t spend a lot of money there. But propping up Assad and his system costs a lot of money, roughly USD 10-15 billion annually. This money is provided by Iran. Should this dry up, Assad could be in serious trouble. Iran also provides a significant portion of the most effective ground troops in Syria. A sustained and hard campaign against Iran would almost certainly damage, worst case completely cut off this lifeline. (Logical: if Iran was in serious trouble, attacked at home, it’d have less money and military might to spend abroad.) This would in turn spell serious trouble for the Russians in Syria. And it’d make Putin more than a little bit angry. He’d probably start sending the aid to Assad himself. And he’d want to create trouble for the Americans attacking his important ally.

    So, I think it’s quite likely that Russia would be significantly more active in supporting Iran than most people suspect.

    He’d probably start sending the aid to Assad himself. And he’d want to create trouble for the Americans attacking his important ally.

    Agree.

    So, I think it’s quite likely that Russia would be significantly more active in supporting Iran than most people suspect.

    Don’t know what most people suspect but I believe:”providing political support, limited intelligence, certain not too advanced weapons systems in limited quantity and technical assistance”.

    I know that people want to believe that, this time, Russia/China/whatever will finally put a stop on “all that”. Makes life more bearable.
    Creates constant disappointment, though.

    The only element which could stop this process is American public, or, better, the losers in this game.
    And that, I am afraid, forces some other uncomfortable realities onto minority willing to think.

    Read More
    • Replies: @myself
    Agreed, Russia and China cannot, per se, stop war against Iran.

    What they can do is make sure Americans suffer constant dead and maimed, proportional to say those in the Vietnam War. Say about 20 to 25 dead per day, on average. About 600+ dead a month. It will eventually add up.

    I am almost certain the American public will support the occupation of Iran for at least 3 years, maybe even 5 years.

    As long as victory seems within reach. The task of Iran, Russia and China will be to make sure that American victory is never in reach - only endless war.

    Eventually, years later, the West will tire of it. We will have butchered say 10% of Iran's population, civilians and military, but in the end the NATO nations' populations will demand an end.

    American dead, lots and lots and lots of American dead, that's what'll make Americans quit. It's happened before, it can happen again.
    , @reiner Tor

    I know that people want to believe that, this time, Russia/China/whatever will finally put a stop on “all that”. Makes life more bearable.
    Creates constant disappointment, though.
     
    In my case it’s different. I am predisposed to pessimism, in large part precisely to avoid disappointment. So until recently I expected Russia to just let the US wage a costly war on Iran. Never stop your enemy when he’s making a mistake.

    Anyway, the Russians certainly weren’t eager to support Iran before 2013 when sanctions were imposed on them. So I thought it was reasonable not to expect much from them.

    But recently I read about Russian politics, and apparently Medvedev was way more independent during his term than I assumed. So Russian foreign policy was slowly moving in an anti-USA direction until 2008, but then there really was a reset, not just the stupid Hillary button, but also because Medvedev was predisposed to a much friendlier stance towards the USA than Putin by that time. (Initially Putin also thought that way, but he wised up by 2008.)

    So anyway, Russian policy has been way more confrontational since 2012. In 2013 it already threatened nuclear war in case Syria was attacked, in 2014 annexed the Crimea, saved the rebels in Ukraine, and then in 2015 started the Syrian intervention.

    I think it’s overly optimistic (from the USA viewpoint) to expect - as you do - Putin to do very little. I admit I can be wrong, but that’s the picture I see. Russia doesn’t look so confrontational because of the early Putin period (which was no longer by 2007) and the Medvedev period. Take those out, and Russia looks more likely to intervene heavily. Like modern weapons systems with crews. It could get to Cold War level support for a proxy.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  152. Sean says:
    @Sean
    After WW2 John Von Nuemann and Bertand Russell advocated disarming the Soviet Union before it could get the Bomb. The proposal on those noted superbrains was the Soviets (who still had no nukes) were to be disarmed by America using, or threatening to use nuclear weapons.. Russia wasn't important enough to conquer then, it isn't now, and it won't be in the future. However there may be an analogous to nuke-less-Russia situation in the future, if the technological transfers from the West are halted.

    What stopped them from exploiting those resources themselves and becoming the world’s richest and most powerful state, eh?

    Read More
    • Replies: @bluedog
    They are powerful other wise we would have attacked them long ago,and as far as their natural resources they are doing very well with those, and will only do better in the future,for you see they don't exploit their natural resources like the west has done nor are they in debt as the west has become just waiting fort the next shoe to drop,no I would say Russia is in very good shape, I wish I could say the same for the U.S.A....
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  153. myself says:
    @peterAUS

    That’s a different case. The Russians are unlikely to risk war as long as Iran is merely weakened.
     
    Yup. Settled then.

    But do you seriously think the U.S. would be content merely to weaken Iran? They’re obsessed with regime change. They won’t be satisfied until they’ve turned Iran into a showcase of freedom and democracy, just like Libya and Iraq.
     
    Correct.

    First step: weaken Iran and get a lodgement into the territory, a foothold if you will. Stop. Consolidate.
    Use that to further weaken the regime, but without resorting to heavy warfare. Like Israel/Syria as we speak. Try to destabilize the regime and overthrow it from within.
    Should all that fails resort to the new open warfare.

    Conclusion:
    This episode lasts 3-6 months without going too bad (as said, except for lower 80 % of Iranian population).
    The next episode could start in 9 months....or 3 years/whatever.

    Russia would be rather keen on that actually.
    That effort, spent there, isn't being spent in Ukraine, for example. Then, that effort spends US/allies resources. Then, that effort buys Russia more time.
    What's not to like?

    Multidimensional chess masters and such. In this case...sacrifice a knight. King is safe, so no prob.

    A plausible scenario, certainly.

    On problem, though. How big a “lodgement” are we talking?

    It has to be large enough to “weaken” Iran. Guantanamo-sized won’t cut it. I mention Guantanamo in Cuba, because it’s so small (it’s what, ~45 square miles? TINY) that there isn’t a significant insurgency problem inside the lodgement.

    Conversely, it does not weaken Cuba either. Humiliates them perhaps, but not weaken.

    OTOH, an occupied zone that might weaken Iran would have to be quite . . . extensive. Similar to say, South Vietnam in relation to all of Vietnam. Well, let’s be generous and say you occupy only 1/3 of Iran, not half.

    But then a zone that large, enough to affect Iran, will result in an insurgency, probably a foreign-supported one. Plus the almost guaranteed conventional build-up of the rump Iranian state’s military power – supplied by Russia (officially) and probably China (unofficially), of course.

    So, conventional NATO troops would stay there forever as shield against Iran’s conventional army, plus have to wage counter-insurgency, also indefinitely.

    Now, you COULD postulate an Afghanistan scenario – that NATO would keep an army in Iran for say 40 years (Afghanistan has not really stopped fighting since 1980). Bad analogy though, since there’s no end in sight for the Afghan War, and that’s with only Pakistani support for the Mujaheddin.

    Now imagine them with Great Power backing.

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterAUS

    On problem, though. How big a “lodgement” are we talking?
     
    Well...a very good question. The Question in fact.

    There are two ways to answer it.
    One is "Internet blabbing" type. Like, a ball park thing; I can do that and anyone with a grain of expertise could shoot it down in 5 minutes. That's not so bad because then we'll have 500 comments article thread. Still, I'll pass.
    To do it right I'd have to sit, full time and, say, in 2 weeks of hard work produce something of an educated guess. That could also be shot down in 5 minutes by a careful reader with expertise. Probably five guys here, tops.
    See where I am going?
    Bottom line, except top people in Pentagon nobody can,properly, answer that question.

    Having said that, there are principles which could point to how big the "lodgment" should be.
    It has to secure Hormuz coast and be deep enough not be cut with, up to, a battle group Iranian effort. I say battle group because anything above it should be seen soon, from "above", and made ineffective.
    So, taking above as basic input, say, all of that coast and up to 10 Kms inland. Approximately, of course, taking the TERRAIN into consideration (Anzio anyone?).
    Again, to answer properly even that (10 kms) I'd need to spend all day, at least, poring over maps. Nahh...Prefer going for my stroll soon. Weather is very nice.

    So, back to


    It has to be large enough to “weaken” Iran.
     
    and

    OTOH, an occupied zone that might weaken Iran would have to be quite . . . extensive.
     
    Not really.
    The only purpose of the lodgment is to keep the Hormuz open.
    Weakening of the regime would be done "from the air/open sea". Hammer the country until the regime concedes. As Yugoslavia, for example.

    So, conventional NATO troops would stay there forever as shield against Iran’s conventional army..
     
    Yes and no.
    They'll stay there until the next phase. "Ideal" scenario is Iraq/Afghanistan model.
    As you say:

    Now, you COULD postulate an Afghanistan scenario – that NATO would keep an army in Iran for say 40 years (Afghanistan has not really stopped fighting since 1980). Bad analogy though, since there’s no end in sight for the Afghan War, and that’s with only Pakistani support for the Mujaheddin.
     

    Now imagine them with Great Power backing.
     
    Well, that's the game we are in. All of us.
    As long as it doesn't get nuclear that's the world we live in.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  154. Sean says:
    @peterAUS

    That’s a different case. The Russians are unlikely to risk war as long as Iran is merely weakened.
     
    Yup. Settled then.

    But do you seriously think the U.S. would be content merely to weaken Iran? They’re obsessed with regime change. They won’t be satisfied until they’ve turned Iran into a showcase of freedom and democracy, just like Libya and Iraq.
     
    Correct.

    First step: weaken Iran and get a lodgement into the territory, a foothold if you will. Stop. Consolidate.
    Use that to further weaken the regime, but without resorting to heavy warfare. Like Israel/Syria as we speak. Try to destabilize the regime and overthrow it from within.
    Should all that fails resort to the new open warfare.

    Conclusion:
    This episode lasts 3-6 months without going too bad (as said, except for lower 80 % of Iranian population).
    The next episode could start in 9 months....or 3 years/whatever.

    Russia would be rather keen on that actually.
    That effort, spent there, isn't being spent in Ukraine, for example. Then, that effort spends US/allies resources. Then, that effort buys Russia more time.
    What's not to like?

    Multidimensional chess masters and such. In this case...sacrifice a knight. King is safe, so no prob.

    The Russians are committed in the Ukraine and serious support for the Iranian Regime would see the US giving crucial extra backing to the Ukrainian government forces.

    US program for crushing Iran
    Phase one: They will start with limited raids on suspected nuclear facilities to humiliate Iran, and extreme sanctions that will destroy the prospects of the disproportionately young middle class, thus creating discontent.

    Phase two: Covert military action against Iran will be designed to humiliate it and splinter minority statelets off of it (Iran is not immune to this).

    Phase three: The leaders of Iran having been made to look totally unable to uphold the integrity of the country or provide a standard of living for its population, an uprising will start.

    Phase four: To protect innocent civilians, the US will intervene and destroy the Iranian armed forces.

    Read More
    • LOL: bluedog
    • Replies: @peterAUS

    The Russians are committed in the Ukraine and serious support for the Iranian Regime would see the US giving crucial extra backing to the Ukrainian government forces.
     
    Yup. Two "fronts". Even three. Syria.

    As for those phases, well, that's one option.

    There are other options, of course, and I am sure that Pentagon has been working hard on all of them.
    , @CalDre
    Wow, how you pathetic little know-nothing piss-ants entertain your evil minds all day long.

    Phase one: They will start with limited raids on suspected nuclear facilities to humiliate Iran, and extreme sanctions that will destroy the prospects of the disproportionately young middle class, thus creating discontent.
     
    Iran's nuclear facilities are deep underground, except for the commercial nuclear reactor, which, if attacked, would not only kill Russian engineers (drawing Russia into the war to sink the attacking Evil Empire's death ships), but cause a humanitarian catastrophe which will result in global sanctions against the US Terror State.

    As to extreme sanctions, they have already tried that, for many years, including stealing hundreds of billions from Iran. China and Russia in any event (and many other countries) will not honor US sanctions. And US unlawful piracy at sea will be an act of war against whomever's ship it is.


    Phase two: Covert military action against Iran will be designed to humiliate it and splinter minority statelets off of it (Iran is not immune to this).
     
    That did work briefly in Syria, which is far more fragmented than Iran, but in general, Iranians are loyal. Even the Kurds. Iraqis and Americans couldn't turn anybody in the 10-year Iraq-Iran war, when Iran was exceptionally weak and isolated, so what makes you think they can turn them now? (And yes, the Evil Empire already fought a 10-year war against Iran, as I mentioned, when it was exceptionally weak and isolated.)

    Phase three: The leaders of Iran having been made to look totally unable to uphold the integrity of the country or provide a standard of living for its population, an uprising will start.
     
    Actually when oil hits $300 / barrel and the US economy collapses due to a stupid, illegal, immoral, evil war against Iran waged to serve the nefarious Jews supremacists who rule Washington and view Americans as their cattle in battle, it is the Jew supremacists/Zionists in US who better worry about an uprising.
    , @RadicalCenter
    Does anyone know how concentrated the Azeri population is in a particular corner of Iran?

    How well are the Azeris assimilated? Do most Azeris in Iran feel loyalty to Iran as a nation and a culture?

    Would the Azeris take the chance to break off a chunk of Iran for themselves if an outside power like the USA provided serious armaments and support?

    Would Azerbaijan (with the approval of big brother Turkey) send arms and volunteers to help an Azeri separatist revolution in Iran if it looked like they could win and gravely damage rival Iran?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  155. myself says:
    @peterAUS

    He’d probably start sending the aid to Assad himself. And he’d want to create trouble for the Americans attacking his important ally.
     
    Agree.

    So, I think it’s quite likely that Russia would be significantly more active in supporting Iran than most people suspect.
     
    Don't know what most people suspect but I believe:"providing political support, limited intelligence, certain not too advanced weapons systems in limited quantity and technical assistance".

    I know that people want to believe that, this time, Russia/China/whatever will finally put a stop on "all that". Makes life more bearable.
    Creates constant disappointment, though.

    The only element which could stop this process is American public, or, better, the losers in this game.
    And that, I am afraid, forces some other uncomfortable realities onto minority willing to think.

    Agreed, Russia and China cannot, per se, stop war against Iran.

    What they can do is make sure Americans suffer constant dead and maimed, proportional to say those in the Vietnam War. Say about 20 to 25 dead per day, on average. About 600+ dead a month. It will eventually add up.

    I am almost certain the American public will support the occupation of Iran for at least 3 years, maybe even 5 years.

    As long as victory seems within reach. The task of Iran, Russia and China will be to make sure that American victory is never in reach – only endless war.

    Eventually, years later, the West will tire of it. We will have butchered say 10% of Iran’s population, civilians and military, but in the end the NATO nations’ populations will demand an end.

    American dead, lots and lots and lots of American dead, that’s what’ll make Americans quit. It’s happened before, it can happen again.

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterAUS
    Yup.
    There is more, perhaps.

    Those "dead and maimed" in "endless war" will be......who?

    I'd say troopers in infantry, SF and combat support. ..................
    The US underclass, mostly from the "basket of deplorables" and urban ghettos.

    Think about that for a second.
    You expect to see any public uproar there re "Vietnam era"?
    I don't.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  156. myself says:

    I guess what it boils down to is this:

    Massive trauma, physical trauma to the American population, and psychological trauma to the American psyche, is what is needed for American civilians to call off wars.

    NOTHING LESS than another Vietnam War experience will do. We have been on a rampage since 2003, when we fabricated non-existent WMD as a casus belli to destroy Iraq.

    But enough constant AGONY, delivered over a long enough period, can stop anybody.

    It has truly come to this.

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterAUS

    I guess what it boils down to is this:

    Massive trauma, physical trauma to the American population, and psychological trauma to the American psyche, is what is needed for American civilians to call off wars.
     
    Yup.

    NOTHING LESS than another Vietnam War experience will do.
     

    But enough constant AGONY, delivered over a long enough period, can stop anybody.
     
    Not easy to replicate with all volunteer armed forces where most of casualties are from the society's underclass.

    It has truly come to this.
     
    You mean problem of underclass being "solved" for the benefit of the top layers?
    Cynic, I know.

    There is another possibility, though.
    One...just one.......nuclear launch somewhere. I am absolutely positive that nothing short of that will wake up your common "consumer" of higher 40 % of society.

    The catch is, of course, how not to go with the second...third...and the rest.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  157. peterAUS says:
    @myself
    A plausible scenario, certainly.

    On problem, though. How big a "lodgement" are we talking?

    It has to be large enough to "weaken" Iran. Guantanamo-sized won't cut it. I mention Guantanamo in Cuba, because it's so small (it's what, ~45 square miles? TINY) that there isn't a significant insurgency problem inside the lodgement.

    Conversely, it does not weaken Cuba either. Humiliates them perhaps, but not weaken.

    OTOH, an occupied zone that might weaken Iran would have to be quite . . . extensive. Similar to say, South Vietnam in relation to all of Vietnam. Well, let's be generous and say you occupy only 1/3 of Iran, not half.

    But then a zone that large, enough to affect Iran, will result in an insurgency, probably a foreign-supported one. Plus the almost guaranteed conventional build-up of the rump Iranian state's military power - supplied by Russia (officially) and probably China (unofficially), of course.

    So, conventional NATO troops would stay there forever as shield against Iran's conventional army, plus have to wage counter-insurgency, also indefinitely.

    Now, you COULD postulate an Afghanistan scenario - that NATO would keep an army in Iran for say 40 years (Afghanistan has not really stopped fighting since 1980). Bad analogy though, since there's no end in sight for the Afghan War, and that's with only Pakistani support for the Mujaheddin.

    Now imagine them with Great Power backing.

    On problem, though. How big a “lodgement” are we talking?

    Well…a very good question. The Question in fact.

    There are two ways to answer it.
    One is “Internet blabbing” type. Like, a ball park thing; I can do that and anyone with a grain of expertise could shoot it down in 5 minutes. That’s not so bad because then we’ll have 500 comments article thread. Still, I’ll pass.
    To do it right I’d have to sit, full time and, say, in 2 weeks of hard work produce something of an educated guess. That could also be shot down in 5 minutes by a careful reader with expertise. Probably five guys here, tops.
    See where I am going?
    Bottom line, except top people in Pentagon nobody can,properly, answer that question.

    Having said that, there are principles which could point to how big the “lodgment” should be.
    It has to secure Hormuz coast and be deep enough not be cut with, up to, a battle group Iranian effort. I say battle group because anything above it should be seen soon, from “above”, and made ineffective.
    So, taking above as basic input, say, all of that coast and up to 10 Kms inland. Approximately, of course, taking the TERRAIN into consideration (Anzio anyone?).
    Again, to answer properly even that (10 kms) I’d need to spend all day, at least, poring over maps. Nahh…Prefer going for my stroll soon. Weather is very nice.

    So, back to

    It has to be large enough to “weaken” Iran.

    and

    OTOH, an occupied zone that might weaken Iran would have to be quite . . . extensive.

    Not really.
    The only purpose of the lodgment is to keep the Hormuz open.
    Weakening of the regime would be done “from the air/open sea”. Hammer the country until the regime concedes. As Yugoslavia, for example.

    So, conventional NATO troops would stay there forever as shield against Iran’s conventional army..

    Yes and no.
    They’ll stay there until the next phase. “Ideal” scenario is Iraq/Afghanistan model.
    As you say:

    Now, you COULD postulate an Afghanistan scenario – that NATO would keep an army in Iran for say 40 years (Afghanistan has not really stopped fighting since 1980). Bad analogy though, since there’s no end in sight for the Afghan War, and that’s with only Pakistani support for the Mujaheddin.

    Now imagine them with Great Power backing.

    Well, that’s the game we are in. All of us.
    As long as it doesn’t get nuclear that’s the world we live in.

    Read More
    • Replies: @myself

    One is “Internet blabbing” type. Like, a ball park thing; I can do that and anyone with a grain of expertise could shoot it down in 5 minutes. That’s not so bad because then we’ll have 500 comments article thread. Still, I’ll pass.
    To do it right I’d have to sit, full time and, say, in 2 weeks of hard work produce something of an educated guess. That could also be shot down in 5 minutes by a careful reader with expertise. Probably five guys here, tops.
    See where I am going?
    Bottom line, except top people in Pentagon nobody can,properly, answer that question.
     
    All we are doing is “discussing”. As long as we don’t make assertions that any of us 100% knows anything for certain, it can still be informative. At least it gets us all honestly thinking, eh?

    It has to secure Hormuz coast and be deep enough not be cut with, up to, a battle group Iranian effort. I say battle group because anything above it should be seen soon, from “above”, and made ineffective.
    So, taking above as basic input, say, all of that coast and up to 10 Kms inland. Approximately, of course, taking the TERRAIN into consideration (Anzio anyone?).
     
    It could well be the case that modern technology has solved the problem of Iran’s mountainous terrain. Such that formations larger than heavy brigade size can be detected as they form up for attack, and destroyed.

    It should be pointed out to others here that Iran’s terrain is rather different from Iraq’s – mountains (some of which are forest-covered) and plateaus vice open flood plains and desert. Not quite deep forest and triple canopy jungle, but presents its own problems of detection.

    In terms of recent war analogies, I think of Iran as a larger, greener, more populous Afghanistan

    Yes and no.
    They’ll stay there until the next phase. “Ideal” scenario is Iraq/Afghanistan model.
    As you say:

    Now, you COULD postulate an Afghanistan scenario – that NATO would keep an army in Iran for say 40 years (Afghanistan has not really stopped fighting since 1980). Bad analogy though, since there’s no end in sight for the Afghan War, and that’s with only Pakistani support for the Mujaheddin.
     
    - As you point out, that’s the “IDEAL” scenario. Basically, the Iranian state collapses completely, NATO troops pour in, and the long. long occupation begins.

    - I won’t talk of the “NIGHTMARE” scenario, which is North Vietnam 1945-1975. This only happens if the Iranians stand fast, start an resilient insurgency. and get substantial backing.

    - Let’s instead discuss the “MIDDLE” scenarios – analogous to say the Israeli occupied Sinai, 1967 to 1979. Whatever the merits of that occupation, and however it came about (1967 Six Day War), the loss of the Sinai did not substantially weaken Egypt. Instead it was induced to launch, the War of Attrition, and eventually the Yom Kippur War. Had there been no peace treaty, Egypt would have launched further wars, and continued the attrition, ad infinitum.
    ALL THAT TIME, Israel had to keep its guard up, lest the Egyptians return.

    A similar scenario seems plausible if America occupies the Iranian coast. The “middle-of-the-road” outcome, I agree.

    In which case, insurgency may or may not be a factor (depends on how populated that coastal strip is), but constant probing by Iranian forces of NATO lines seems very likely. An Iranian “War of Attrition”, directed at the Americans and British.

    A very debilitating posture for the occupiers. No, not immediately. All will seem well – at first.

    But give it around 5 years for the trickle of deaths and maiming to build up, and it might be a different story entirely.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  158. peterAUS says:
    @Sean
    The Russians are committed in the Ukraine and serious support for the Iranian Regime would see the US giving crucial extra backing to the Ukrainian government forces.

    US program for crushing Iran
    Phase one: They will start with limited raids on suspected nuclear facilities to humiliate Iran, and extreme sanctions that will destroy the prospects of the disproportionately young middle class, thus creating discontent.

    Phase two: Covert military action against Iran will be designed to humiliate it and splinter minority statelets off of it (Iran is not immune to this).

    Phase three: The leaders of Iran having been made to look totally unable to uphold the integrity of the country or provide a standard of living for its population, an uprising will start.

    Phase four: To protect innocent civilians, the US will intervene and destroy the Iranian armed forces.

    The Russians are committed in the Ukraine and serious support for the Iranian Regime would see the US giving crucial extra backing to the Ukrainian government forces.

    Yup. Two “fronts”. Even three. Syria.

    As for those phases, well, that’s one option.

    There are other options, of course, and I am sure that Pentagon has been working hard on all of them.

    Read More
    • Replies: @bluedog
    You must have your head up your backside for we can't even handle one front not to mention three,and yes we have proven that over and over again....
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  159. peterAUS says:
    @myself
    Agreed, Russia and China cannot, per se, stop war against Iran.

    What they can do is make sure Americans suffer constant dead and maimed, proportional to say those in the Vietnam War. Say about 20 to 25 dead per day, on average. About 600+ dead a month. It will eventually add up.

    I am almost certain the American public will support the occupation of Iran for at least 3 years, maybe even 5 years.

    As long as victory seems within reach. The task of Iran, Russia and China will be to make sure that American victory is never in reach - only endless war.

    Eventually, years later, the West will tire of it. We will have butchered say 10% of Iran's population, civilians and military, but in the end the NATO nations' populations will demand an end.

    American dead, lots and lots and lots of American dead, that's what'll make Americans quit. It's happened before, it can happen again.

    Yup.
    There is more, perhaps.

    Those “dead and maimed” in “endless war” will be……who?

    I’d say troopers in infantry, SF and combat support. ………………
    The US underclass, mostly from the “basket of deplorables” and urban ghettos.

    Think about that for a second.
    You expect to see any public uproar there re “Vietnam era”?
    I don’t.

    Read More
    • Agree: reiner Tor
    • Replies: @myself
    Oh yes. I certainly considered that very factor.

    The U.S. underclass, out of desperation, may indeed flock to the armed forces in return for steady pay, shelter and square meals.

    But will the underclass want to march to their doom in an unwinnable, endless war? Even the poorest and most undesired members of society want to live, and certainly want to keep their limbs and organs intact.

    ENOUGH death and maiming, going above a certain threshold, will convince even the underclasses NOT to volunteer and die or become physically disabled in some godforsaken field on the other side of the planet. Word will, eventually (emphasis on eventually) get around their communities that military service is a death sentence.

    In the absence of The Draft, what will happen then?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  160. peterAUS says:
    @myself
    I guess what it boils down to is this:

    Massive trauma, physical trauma to the American population, and psychological trauma to the American psyche, is what is needed for American civilians to call off wars.

    NOTHING LESS than another Vietnam War experience will do. We have been on a rampage since 2003, when we fabricated non-existent WMD as a casus belli to destroy Iraq.

    But enough constant AGONY, delivered over a long enough period, can stop anybody.


    It has truly come to this.

    I guess what it boils down to is this:

    Massive trauma, physical trauma to the American population, and psychological trauma to the American psyche, is what is needed for American civilians to call off wars.

    Yup.

    NOTHING LESS than another Vietnam War experience will do.

    But enough constant AGONY, delivered over a long enough period, can stop anybody.

    Not easy to replicate with all volunteer armed forces where most of casualties are from the society’s underclass.

    It has truly come to this.

    You mean problem of underclass being “solved” for the benefit of the top layers?
    Cynic, I know.

    There is another possibility, though.
    One…just one…….nuclear launch somewhere. I am absolutely positive that nothing short of that will wake up your common “consumer” of higher 40 % of society.

    The catch is, of course, how not to go with the second…third…and the rest.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  161. @peterAUS

    He’d probably start sending the aid to Assad himself. And he’d want to create trouble for the Americans attacking his important ally.
     
    Agree.

    So, I think it’s quite likely that Russia would be significantly more active in supporting Iran than most people suspect.
     
    Don't know what most people suspect but I believe:"providing political support, limited intelligence, certain not too advanced weapons systems in limited quantity and technical assistance".

    I know that people want to believe that, this time, Russia/China/whatever will finally put a stop on "all that". Makes life more bearable.
    Creates constant disappointment, though.

    The only element which could stop this process is American public, or, better, the losers in this game.
    And that, I am afraid, forces some other uncomfortable realities onto minority willing to think.

    I know that people want to believe that, this time, Russia/China/whatever will finally put a stop on “all that”. Makes life more bearable.
    Creates constant disappointment, though.

    In my case it’s different. I am predisposed to pessimism, in large part precisely to avoid disappointment. So until recently I expected Russia to just let the US wage a costly war on Iran. Never stop your enemy when he’s making a mistake.

    Anyway, the Russians certainly weren’t eager to support Iran before 2013 when sanctions were imposed on them. So I thought it was reasonable not to expect much from them.

    But recently I read about Russian politics, and apparently Medvedev was way more independent during his term than I assumed. So Russian foreign policy was slowly moving in an anti-USA direction until 2008, but then there really was a reset, not just the stupid Hillary button, but also because Medvedev was predisposed to a much friendlier stance towards the USA than Putin by that time. (Initially Putin also thought that way, but he wised up by 2008.)

    So anyway, Russian policy has been way more confrontational since 2012. In 2013 it already threatened nuclear war in case Syria was attacked, in 2014 annexed the Crimea, saved the rebels in Ukraine, and then in 2015 started the Syrian intervention.

    I think it’s overly optimistic (from the USA viewpoint) to expect – as you do – Putin to do very little. I admit I can be wrong, but that’s the picture I see. Russia doesn’t look so confrontational because of the early Putin period (which was no longer by 2007) and the Medvedev period. Take those out, and Russia looks more likely to intervene heavily. Like modern weapons systems with crews. It could get to Cold War level support for a proxy.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  162. bluedog says:
    @peterAUS

    The Russians are committed in the Ukraine and serious support for the Iranian Regime would see the US giving crucial extra backing to the Ukrainian government forces.
     
    Yup. Two "fronts". Even three. Syria.

    As for those phases, well, that's one option.

    There are other options, of course, and I am sure that Pentagon has been working hard on all of them.

    You must have your head up your backside for we can’t even handle one front not to mention three,and yes we have proven that over and over again….

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  163. bluedog says:
    @Sean
    What stopped them from exploiting those resources themselves and becoming the world's richest and most powerful state, eh?

    They are powerful other wise we would have attacked them long ago,and as far as their natural resources they are doing very well with those, and will only do better in the future,for you see they don’t exploit their natural resources like the west has done nor are they in debt as the west has become just waiting fort the next shoe to drop,no I would say Russia is in very good shape, I wish I could say the same for the U.S.A….

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  164. myself says:
    @peterAUS
    Yup.
    There is more, perhaps.

    Those "dead and maimed" in "endless war" will be......who?

    I'd say troopers in infantry, SF and combat support. ..................
    The US underclass, mostly from the "basket of deplorables" and urban ghettos.

    Think about that for a second.
    You expect to see any public uproar there re "Vietnam era"?
    I don't.

    Oh yes. I certainly considered that very factor.

    The U.S. underclass, out of desperation, may indeed flock to the armed forces in return for steady pay, shelter and square meals.

    But will the underclass want to march to their doom in an unwinnable, endless war? Even the poorest and most undesired members of society want to live, and certainly want to keep their limbs and organs intact.

    ENOUGH death and maiming, going above a certain threshold, will convince even the underclasses NOT to volunteer and die or become physically disabled in some godforsaken field on the other side of the planet. Word will, eventually (emphasis on eventually) get around their communities that military service is a death sentence.

    In the absence of The Draft, what will happen then?

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterAUS

    The U.S. underclass, out of desperation, may indeed flock to the armed forces in return for steady pay, shelter and square meals.
     
    Yup.

    But will the underclass want to march to their doom in an unwinnable, endless war? Even the poorest and most undesired members of society want to live, and certainly want to keep their limbs and organs intact.
     
    "Doom" isn't correct. "Risk" is.
    Risk-reward.
    So, I'd rephrase into:
    ..underclass will be compelled to participate in an unwinnable, endless war. Risk there is comparable to risk of death in urban ghettos and bleak places in "flyover states". Benefits, especially for families, outweigh the risks.

    Word will, eventually (emphasis on eventually) get around their communities that military service is a death sentence.
     
    Eventually ...perhaps.
    Not at this (Iran type) level of conflict.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  165. myself says:
    @peterAUS

    On problem, though. How big a “lodgement” are we talking?
     
    Well...a very good question. The Question in fact.

    There are two ways to answer it.
    One is "Internet blabbing" type. Like, a ball park thing; I can do that and anyone with a grain of expertise could shoot it down in 5 minutes. That's not so bad because then we'll have 500 comments article thread. Still, I'll pass.
    To do it right I'd have to sit, full time and, say, in 2 weeks of hard work produce something of an educated guess. That could also be shot down in 5 minutes by a careful reader with expertise. Probably five guys here, tops.
    See where I am going?
    Bottom line, except top people in Pentagon nobody can,properly, answer that question.

    Having said that, there are principles which could point to how big the "lodgment" should be.
    It has to secure Hormuz coast and be deep enough not be cut with, up to, a battle group Iranian effort. I say battle group because anything above it should be seen soon, from "above", and made ineffective.
    So, taking above as basic input, say, all of that coast and up to 10 Kms inland. Approximately, of course, taking the TERRAIN into consideration (Anzio anyone?).
    Again, to answer properly even that (10 kms) I'd need to spend all day, at least, poring over maps. Nahh...Prefer going for my stroll soon. Weather is very nice.

    So, back to


    It has to be large enough to “weaken” Iran.
     
    and

    OTOH, an occupied zone that might weaken Iran would have to be quite . . . extensive.
     
    Not really.
    The only purpose of the lodgment is to keep the Hormuz open.
    Weakening of the regime would be done "from the air/open sea". Hammer the country until the regime concedes. As Yugoslavia, for example.

    So, conventional NATO troops would stay there forever as shield against Iran’s conventional army..
     
    Yes and no.
    They'll stay there until the next phase. "Ideal" scenario is Iraq/Afghanistan model.
    As you say:

    Now, you COULD postulate an Afghanistan scenario – that NATO would keep an army in Iran for say 40 years (Afghanistan has not really stopped fighting since 1980). Bad analogy though, since there’s no end in sight for the Afghan War, and that’s with only Pakistani support for the Mujaheddin.
     

    Now imagine them with Great Power backing.
     
    Well, that's the game we are in. All of us.
    As long as it doesn't get nuclear that's the world we live in.

    One is “Internet blabbing” type. Like, a ball park thing; I can do that and anyone with a grain of expertise could shoot it down in 5 minutes. That’s not so bad because then we’ll have 500 comments article thread. Still, I’ll pass.
    To do it right I’d have to sit, full time and, say, in 2 weeks of hard work produce something of an educated guess. That could also be shot down in 5 minutes by a careful reader with expertise. Probably five guys here, tops.
    See where I am going?
    Bottom line, except top people in Pentagon nobody can,properly, answer that question.

    All we are doing is “discussing”. As long as we don’t make assertions that any of us 100% knows anything for certain, it can still be informative. At least it gets us all honestly thinking, eh?

    It has to secure Hormuz coast and be deep enough not be cut with, up to, a battle group Iranian effort. I say battle group because anything above it should be seen soon, from “above”, and made ineffective.
    So, taking above as basic input, say, all of that coast and up to 10 Kms inland. Approximately, of course, taking the TERRAIN into consideration (Anzio anyone?).

    It could well be the case that modern technology has solved the problem of Iran’s mountainous terrain. Such that formations larger than heavy brigade size can be detected as they form up for attack, and destroyed.

    It should be pointed out to others here that Iran’s terrain is rather different from Iraq’s – mountains (some of which are forest-covered) and plateaus vice open flood plains and desert. Not quite deep forest and triple canopy jungle, but presents its own problems of detection.

    In terms of recent war analogies, I think of Iran as a larger, greener, more populous Afghanistan

    Yes and no.
    They’ll stay there until the next phase. “Ideal” scenario is Iraq/Afghanistan model.
    As you say:

    Now, you COULD postulate an Afghanistan scenario – that NATO would keep an army in Iran for say 40 years (Afghanistan has not really stopped fighting since 1980). Bad analogy though, since there’s no end in sight for the Afghan War, and that’s with only Pakistani support for the Mujaheddin.

    - As you point out, that’s the “IDEAL” scenario. Basically, the Iranian state collapses completely, NATO troops pour in, and the long. long occupation begins.

    - I won’t talk of the “NIGHTMARE” scenario, which is North Vietnam 1945-1975. This only happens if the Iranians stand fast, start an resilient insurgency. and get substantial backing.

    - Let’s instead discuss the “MIDDLE” scenarios – analogous to say the Israeli occupied Sinai, 1967 to 1979. Whatever the merits of that occupation, and however it came about (1967 Six Day War), the loss of the Sinai did not substantially weaken Egypt. Instead it was induced to launch, the War of Attrition, and eventually the Yom Kippur War. Had there been no peace treaty, Egypt would have launched further wars, and continued the attrition, ad infinitum.
    ALL THAT TIME, Israel had to keep its guard up, lest the Egyptians return.

    A similar scenario seems plausible if America occupies the Iranian coast. The “middle-of-the-road” outcome, I agree.

    In which case, insurgency may or may not be a factor (depends on how populated that coastal strip is), but constant probing by Iranian forces of NATO lines seems very likely. An Iranian “War of Attrition”, directed at the Americans and British.

    A very debilitating posture for the occupiers. No, not immediately. All will seem well – at first.

    But give it around 5 years for the trickle of deaths and maiming to build up, and it might be a different story entirely.

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterAUS

    All we are doing is “discussing”. As long as we don’t make assertions that any of us 100% knows anything for certain, it can still be informative. At least it gets us all honestly thinking, eh?
     
    Around 10 % of posters here, tops.
    The rest are spanning the space populated by a handful of "employees" from one side to a couple of psychopaths at the other, with most in between.

    Such that formations larger than heavy brigade size can be detected as they form up for attack, and destroyed.
     
    I'd say larger than a combined arms battle group. In this case a mechanized battalion with required attachments and reinforcements. Not necessarily destroyed but simply stopped.
    Won't be easy but won't be a problem.

    As you point out, that’s the “IDEAL” scenario. Basically, the Iranian state collapses completely, NATO troops pour in, and the long. long occupation begins.
     
    Yup.

    I won’t talk of the “NIGHTMARE” scenario, which is North Vietnam 1945-1975. This only happens if the Iranians stand fast, start an resilient insurgency. and get substantial backing.
     
    Yup. But, again, even in that case the effect on US domestic policy/decision making won't be the same. Underclass being cleansed up...versus college kids being cut down. What's not to like if you are one of those winners in the current game, the upper 40 % of society?

    A similar scenario seems plausible if America occupies the Iranian coast. The “middle-of-the-road” outcome, I agree.
     
    It does. I'd give that around 20 % chance.
    More plausible scenario, IMHO, is the "next phase" into Iran. 80 %.

    But give it around 5 years for the trickle of deaths and maiming to build up, and it might be a different story entirely
     
    Well, it is possible. Americans already pulled one miracle, with electing Trump. Maybe we'll see another then. Again, I'd give that around 30 % chance. 70 % is that dystopian future re "the underclass" and countries getting on the bad side of US foreign policy. Smallish countries that is.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  166. Miro23 says:
    @reiner Tor

    “Ruthless” air campaign means Russia sinks US aircraft carriers and blows up US airfields in the region.
     
    I disagree. Russia won’t attack the US, but it will supply arms to Iran.

    “Ruthless” air campaign means Russia sinks US aircraft carriers and blows up US airfields in the region.

    I disagree. Russia won’t attack the US, but it will supply arms to Iran.

    Russia won’t attack the US, but there is the linkage Iran > Syria > Russia. If there was a Russian defensive commitment to Syria, there’s logic for a Russian commitment to Iran. Without Iran, Russia looses Syria.

    One difference, is that in the Syrian war the US was using proxies (like it did in Libya), so US troops were not directly involved in ground battles. There aren’t any proxies to do the fighting in Iran, so it’s down to US forces, with “Regime Change” meaning ground troops.

    This a very big commitment for the US, posing military and political problems (Iran is a country of 80 million people and Trump was elected on no more ME wars) – so there almost inevitably has to be a major 9/11 style trigger to justify it – probably some fabricated attack on US military assets to set up the Iranians.

    It would be too risky to False Flag the Russians.

    As to the fighting itself, the US realistically can’t occupy the whole of Iran, so it occupies the oil producing regions (across the Straits of Hormuz from Saudi Arabia), and runs an Iraqi style bombing campaign against the rest of the country – basically to destroy it. That would get control of Iranian oil and satisfy Israel, but at the same time, the US is weaker politically, economically and militarily than it was at the outset of the Iraq war, and there’s the Russian involvement that was absent in Iraq.

    Altogether higher risk for the US than previous ME wars.

    Read More
    • Replies: @aleksandar
    You're forgetting one point, Iran will wipe KSA off the map.
    Another issue, how will you support this american force ? ( It will not be a NATO one. )
    By air lift ?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  167. peterAUS says:
    @myself
    Oh yes. I certainly considered that very factor.

    The U.S. underclass, out of desperation, may indeed flock to the armed forces in return for steady pay, shelter and square meals.

    But will the underclass want to march to their doom in an unwinnable, endless war? Even the poorest and most undesired members of society want to live, and certainly want to keep their limbs and organs intact.

    ENOUGH death and maiming, going above a certain threshold, will convince even the underclasses NOT to volunteer and die or become physically disabled in some godforsaken field on the other side of the planet. Word will, eventually (emphasis on eventually) get around their communities that military service is a death sentence.

    In the absence of The Draft, what will happen then?

    The U.S. underclass, out of desperation, may indeed flock to the armed forces in return for steady pay, shelter and square meals.

    Yup.

    But will the underclass want to march to their doom in an unwinnable, endless war? Even the poorest and most undesired members of society want to live, and certainly want to keep their limbs and organs intact.

    “Doom” isn’t correct. “Risk” is.
    Risk-reward.
    So, I’d rephrase into:
    ..underclass will be compelled to participate in an unwinnable, endless war. Risk there is comparable to risk of death in urban ghettos and bleak places in “flyover states”. Benefits, especially for families, outweigh the risks.

    Word will, eventually (emphasis on eventually) get around their communities that military service is a death sentence.

    Eventually …perhaps.
    Not at this (Iran type) level of conflict.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  168. peterAUS says:
    @myself

    One is “Internet blabbing” type. Like, a ball park thing; I can do that and anyone with a grain of expertise could shoot it down in 5 minutes. That’s not so bad because then we’ll have 500 comments article thread. Still, I’ll pass.
    To do it right I’d have to sit, full time and, say, in 2 weeks of hard work produce something of an educated guess. That could also be shot down in 5 minutes by a careful reader with expertise. Probably five guys here, tops.
    See where I am going?
    Bottom line, except top people in Pentagon nobody can,properly, answer that question.
     
    All we are doing is “discussing”. As long as we don’t make assertions that any of us 100% knows anything for certain, it can still be informative. At least it gets us all honestly thinking, eh?

    It has to secure Hormuz coast and be deep enough not be cut with, up to, a battle group Iranian effort. I say battle group because anything above it should be seen soon, from “above”, and made ineffective.
    So, taking above as basic input, say, all of that coast and up to 10 Kms inland. Approximately, of course, taking the TERRAIN into consideration (Anzio anyone?).
     
    It could well be the case that modern technology has solved the problem of Iran’s mountainous terrain. Such that formations larger than heavy brigade size can be detected as they form up for attack, and destroyed.

    It should be pointed out to others here that Iran’s terrain is rather different from Iraq’s – mountains (some of which are forest-covered) and plateaus vice open flood plains and desert. Not quite deep forest and triple canopy jungle, but presents its own problems of detection.

    In terms of recent war analogies, I think of Iran as a larger, greener, more populous Afghanistan

    Yes and no.
    They’ll stay there until the next phase. “Ideal” scenario is Iraq/Afghanistan model.
    As you say:

    Now, you COULD postulate an Afghanistan scenario – that NATO would keep an army in Iran for say 40 years (Afghanistan has not really stopped fighting since 1980). Bad analogy though, since there’s no end in sight for the Afghan War, and that’s with only Pakistani support for the Mujaheddin.
     
    - As you point out, that’s the “IDEAL” scenario. Basically, the Iranian state collapses completely, NATO troops pour in, and the long. long occupation begins.

    - I won’t talk of the “NIGHTMARE” scenario, which is North Vietnam 1945-1975. This only happens if the Iranians stand fast, start an resilient insurgency. and get substantial backing.

    - Let’s instead discuss the “MIDDLE” scenarios – analogous to say the Israeli occupied Sinai, 1967 to 1979. Whatever the merits of that occupation, and however it came about (1967 Six Day War), the loss of the Sinai did not substantially weaken Egypt. Instead it was induced to launch, the War of Attrition, and eventually the Yom Kippur War. Had there been no peace treaty, Egypt would have launched further wars, and continued the attrition, ad infinitum.
    ALL THAT TIME, Israel had to keep its guard up, lest the Egyptians return.

    A similar scenario seems plausible if America occupies the Iranian coast. The “middle-of-the-road” outcome, I agree.

    In which case, insurgency may or may not be a factor (depends on how populated that coastal strip is), but constant probing by Iranian forces of NATO lines seems very likely. An Iranian “War of Attrition”, directed at the Americans and British.

    A very debilitating posture for the occupiers. No, not immediately. All will seem well – at first.

    But give it around 5 years for the trickle of deaths and maiming to build up, and it might be a different story entirely.

    All we are doing is “discussing”. As long as we don’t make assertions that any of us 100% knows anything for certain, it can still be informative. At least it gets us all honestly thinking, eh?

    Around 10 % of posters here, tops.
    The rest are spanning the space populated by a handful of “employees” from one side to a couple of psychopaths at the other, with most in between.

    Such that formations larger than heavy brigade size can be detected as they form up for attack, and destroyed.

    I’d say larger than a combined arms battle group. In this case a mechanized battalion with required attachments and reinforcements. Not necessarily destroyed but simply stopped.
    Won’t be easy but won’t be a problem.

    As you point out, that’s the “IDEAL” scenario. Basically, the Iranian state collapses completely, NATO troops pour in, and the long. long occupation begins.

    Yup.

    I won’t talk of the “NIGHTMARE” scenario, which is North Vietnam 1945-1975. This only happens if the Iranians stand fast, start an resilient insurgency. and get substantial backing.

    Yup. But, again, even in that case the effect on US domestic policy/decision making won’t be the same. Underclass being cleansed up…versus college kids being cut down. What’s not to like if you are one of those winners in the current game, the upper 40 % of society?

    A similar scenario seems plausible if America occupies the Iranian coast. The “middle-of-the-road” outcome, I agree.

    It does. I’d give that around 20 % chance.
    More plausible scenario, IMHO, is the “next phase” into Iran. 80 %.

    But give it around 5 years for the trickle of deaths and maiming to build up, and it might be a different story entirely

    Well, it is possible. Americans already pulled one miracle, with electing Trump. Maybe we’ll see another then. Again, I’d give that around 30 % chance. 70 % is that dystopian future re “the underclass” and countries getting on the bad side of US foreign policy. Smallish countries that is.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  169. @Corvinus
    "There you go again, implying that “Christian virtue”, e.g., trying to be honest with yourself and others, is some kind of esoteric, irrelevant, pie in the sky."

    Yet another strawman on your part. Christian virtue is worthy...as are other virtues that people espouse.

    "There’s nothing sophistic about the painfully obvious fact that in many if not most states..."

    I wasn't referring to those trends as sophistry. I was referring to your insistence that Christian virtue is the end all and be all, and anyone who neglects to embrace is is other than honest and virtuous.

    "By “going down”, I meant that America’s “serious decline” is irreversible."

    Now you offer clarification. Do trends in current America indicate serious decline? Yes. Is it irreversible? No.

    "That means you believe there is going to be some kind of “miracle” that is going to save America from its apparently insoluble problems?"

    As I stated earlier, throughout our history America has experienced significant issues--see "Gilded Age". People at that time felt reforms could not "save" the United States. They were proven wrong. Again, for you to describe the problems as being insoluble, that would be an assertion on your part, not fact and certainly not truth.

    “‘There you go again, implying that “Christian virtue”, e.g., trying to be honest with yourself and others, is some kind of esoteric, irrelevant, pie in the sky.’

    Yet another strawman on your part. Christian virtue is worthy…as are other virtues that people espouse.”

    Sorry but you’re not making very much sense.

    “‘There’s nothing sophistic about the painfully obvious fact that in many if not most states…’

    I wasn’t referring to those trends as sophistry. I was referring to your insistence that Christian virtue is the end all and be all, and anyone who neglects to embrace is is other than honest and virtuous.”

    There you go again with another ridiculous strawman, implying that “Christian virtue”, e.g., trying to be honest with yourself and others, is some kind of esoteric, irrelevant, pie in the sky.

    As I said, anyone who can look at something that’s painfully obvious, and yet still deny it, is being dishonest.

    Consider the example of intellectual dishonesty that you demonstrated earlier in this discussion. When I referred to you as an example to make the point that I have no control over your moral incompetence and your spiritual blindness, you protested that it was not a rhetorical example. You apparently took the position that I was somehow impugning your character. Yet even after I pointed out to you the quotation marks I used, and demonstrated the generally accepted usage of quotation marks to denote “not literally”, you refused to cede the point.

    It was “painfully obvious” from the context of the statement I made and from the quotation marks that my statement was purely rhetorical, and yet you still refused to acknowledge it.

    Please explain in what sense of “virtue” your refusal to admit that you were incorrect should not be seen as dishonesty.

    “‘By “going down”, I meant that America’s “serious decline” is irreversible.’

    Now you offer clarification.”

    LOL! As if was not obvious.

    “Do trends in current America indicate serious decline? Yes. Is it irreversible? No.”

    Well of course it’s irreversible. That’s one reason why they’re trying to start a world war, for example. And being that it’s painfully obviously irreversible, yet you refuse to admit it, you’re being dishonest.

    “As I stated earlier, throughout our history America has experienced significant issues–see “Gilded Age’. People at that time felt reforms could not ‘save’ the United States. They were proven wrong. Again, for you to describe the problems as being insoluble, that would be an assertion on your part, not fact and certainly not truth.”

    Of course I am certainly making an assertion. I assert that America is going down because of corruption, which is everywhere, and which is irreversible. And you are also making an assertion, but unlike my assertion, yours is a completely unfounded bare assertion. You’re just being contrary.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CalDre
    Why are you debating this AI bot? If you enjoy the waste of time, all good, but if you think you can convince the sophomoric troll "Corvinus" the Sun rises in the East, you are completely mistaken.
    , @Corvinus
    "There you go again with another ridiculous strawman, implying that “Christian virtue”, e.g., trying to be honest with yourself and others, is some kind of esoteric, irrelevant, pie in the sky."

    There you go again completely mischaracterizing my statement. It's really simple. Do you believe that "Christian virtue" is THE standard by which all other people must abide by? Yes or no--why.

    "When I referred to you as an example to make the point that I have no control over your moral incompetence and your spiritual blindness..."

    Just stop. Do you believe I am morally incompetent and spiritually blind? Yes or no--why.

    "And being that it’s painfully obviously irreversible, yet you refuse to admit it, you’re being dishonest."

    YOU believe these trends are irreversible. Anyone who says otherwise, to YOU, is dishonest. YOU automatically dismiss any alternative point of view. It is intellectually sterile on your part here.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  170. @Miro23


    @CalDre

    “Ruthless” air campaign means Russia sinks US aircraft carriers and blows up US airfields in the region.
     
    I disagree. Russia won’t attack the US, but it will supply arms to Iran.
     
    Russia won't attack the US, but there is the linkage Iran > Syria > Russia. If there was a Russian defensive commitment to Syria, there's logic for a Russian commitment to Iran. Without Iran, Russia looses Syria.

    One difference, is that in the Syrian war the US was using proxies (like it did in Libya), so US troops were not directly involved in ground battles. There aren't any proxies to do the fighting in Iran, so it's down to US forces, with "Regime Change" meaning ground troops.

    This a very big commitment for the US, posing military and political problems (Iran is a country of 80 million people and Trump was elected on no more ME wars) - so there almost inevitably has to be a major 9/11 style trigger to justify it - probably some fabricated attack on US military assets to set up the Iranians.

    It would be too risky to False Flag the Russians.

    As to the fighting itself, the US realistically can't occupy the whole of Iran, so it occupies the oil producing regions (across the Straits of Hormuz from Saudi Arabia), and runs an Iraqi style bombing campaign against the rest of the country - basically to destroy it. That would get control of Iranian oil and satisfy Israel, but at the same time, the US is weaker politically, economically and militarily than it was at the outset of the Iraq war, and there's the Russian involvement that was absent in Iraq.

    Altogether higher risk for the US than previous ME wars.

    You’re forgetting one point, Iran will wipe KSA off the map.
    Another issue, how will you support this american force ? ( It will not be a NATO one. )
    By air lift ?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Miro23

    You’re forgetting one point, Iran will wipe KSA off the map.

    Another issue, how will you support this American force ? ( It will not be a NATO one. )
    By air lift ?

     

    Quite right. It could well be the end of Saudi Arabia. The Saudis have vulnerable oil installations + a fragile society wholly based on oil revenue (plus plenty of hostile Shias in the oil region).

    I also agree that the logistics of a US invasion are very complicated, since an invasion has to come by sea or air (unless it comes through Iraq) and the buildup has to be at least as large as for the Iraq war (i.e. very large).

    The Neocons may try to resolve the question by leaving aside the "Regime Change" and simply getting the US to destroy Iran from the air. Either way Israel wins (and Iran & the US lose).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  171. CalDre says:
    @Sean
    The Russians are committed in the Ukraine and serious support for the Iranian Regime would see the US giving crucial extra backing to the Ukrainian government forces.

    US program for crushing Iran
    Phase one: They will start with limited raids on suspected nuclear facilities to humiliate Iran, and extreme sanctions that will destroy the prospects of the disproportionately young middle class, thus creating discontent.

    Phase two: Covert military action against Iran will be designed to humiliate it and splinter minority statelets off of it (Iran is not immune to this).

    Phase three: The leaders of Iran having been made to look totally unable to uphold the integrity of the country or provide a standard of living for its population, an uprising will start.

    Phase four: To protect innocent civilians, the US will intervene and destroy the Iranian armed forces.

    Wow, how you pathetic little know-nothing piss-ants entertain your evil minds all day long.

    Phase one: They will start with limited raids on suspected nuclear facilities to humiliate Iran, and extreme sanctions that will destroy the prospects of the disproportionately young middle class, thus creating discontent.

    Iran’s nuclear facilities are deep underground, except for the commercial nuclear reactor, which, if attacked, would not only kill Russian engineers (drawing Russia into the war to sink the attacking Evil Empire’s death ships), but cause a humanitarian catastrophe which will result in global sanctions against the US Terror State.

    As to extreme sanctions, they have already tried that, for many years, including stealing hundreds of billions from Iran. China and Russia in any event (and many other countries) will not honor US sanctions. And US unlawful piracy at sea will be an act of war against whomever’s ship it is.

    Phase two: Covert military action against Iran will be designed to humiliate it and splinter minority statelets off of it (Iran is not immune to this).

    That did work briefly in Syria, which is far more fragmented than Iran, but in general, Iranians are loyal. Even the Kurds. Iraqis and Americans couldn’t turn anybody in the 10-year Iraq-Iran war, when Iran was exceptionally weak and isolated, so what makes you think they can turn them now? (And yes, the Evil Empire already fought a 10-year war against Iran, as I mentioned, when it was exceptionally weak and isolated.)

    Phase three: The leaders of Iran having been made to look totally unable to uphold the integrity of the country or provide a standard of living for its population, an uprising will start.

    Actually when oil hits $300 / barrel and the US economy collapses due to a stupid, illegal, immoral, evil war against Iran waged to serve the nefarious Jews supremacists who rule Washington and view Americans as their cattle in battle, it is the Jew supremacists/Zionists in US who better worry about an uprising.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  172. CalDre says:
    @Harold Smith
    "'There you go again, implying that “Christian virtue”, e.g., trying to be honest with yourself and others, is some kind of esoteric, irrelevant, pie in the sky.'

    Yet another strawman on your part. Christian virtue is worthy…as are other virtues that people espouse."

    Sorry but you're not making very much sense.

    "'There’s nothing sophistic about the painfully obvious fact that in many if not most states…'

    I wasn’t referring to those trends as sophistry. I was referring to your insistence that Christian virtue is the end all and be all, and anyone who neglects to embrace is is other than honest and virtuous."

    There you go again with another ridiculous strawman, implying that “Christian virtue”, e.g., trying to be honest with yourself and others, is some kind of esoteric, irrelevant, pie in the sky.

    As I said, anyone who can look at something that's painfully obvious, and yet still deny it, is being dishonest.

    Consider the example of intellectual dishonesty that you demonstrated earlier in this discussion. When I referred to you as an example to make the point that I have no control over your moral incompetence and your spiritual blindness, you protested that it was not a rhetorical example. You apparently took the position that I was somehow impugning your character. Yet even after I pointed out to you the quotation marks I used, and demonstrated the generally accepted usage of quotation marks to denote "not literally", you refused to cede the point.

    It was "painfully obvious" from the context of the statement I made and from the quotation marks that my statement was purely rhetorical, and yet you still refused to acknowledge it.

    Please explain in what sense of "virtue" your refusal to admit that you were incorrect should not be seen as dishonesty.

    "'By “going down”, I meant that America’s “serious decline” is irreversible.'

    Now you offer clarification."

    LOL! As if was not obvious.

    "Do trends in current America indicate serious decline? Yes. Is it irreversible? No."

    Well of course it's irreversible. That's one reason why they're trying to start a world war, for example. And being that it's painfully obviously irreversible, yet you refuse to admit it, you're being dishonest.

    "As I stated earlier, throughout our history America has experienced significant issues–see "Gilded Age'. People at that time felt reforms could not 'save' the United States. They were proven wrong. Again, for you to describe the problems as being insoluble, that would be an assertion on your part, not fact and certainly not truth."

    Of course I am certainly making an assertion. I assert that America is going down because of corruption, which is everywhere, and which is irreversible. And you are also making an assertion, but unlike my assertion, yours is a completely unfounded bare assertion. You're just being contrary.

    Why are you debating this AI bot? If you enjoy the waste of time, all good, but if you think you can convince the sophomoric troll “Corvinus” the Sun rises in the East, you are completely mistaken.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  173. CalDre says:
    @Sean
    After WW2 John Von Nuemann and Bertand Russell advocated disarming the Soviet Union before it could get the Bomb. The proposal on those noted superbrains was the Soviets (who still had no nukes) were to be disarmed by America using, or threatening to use nuclear weapons.. Russia wasn't important enough to conquer then, it isn't now, and it won't be in the future. However there may be an analogous to nuke-less-Russia situation in the future, if the technological transfers from the West are halted.

    if the technological transfers from the West are halted

    What, you mean Russians can’t use FuckBook or Scroogle any more to violate their privacy and sell all their data to the NSA/CIA? How sad for them!

    Russia doesn’t need anything from the Evil Empire; it will be trading just fine with China, Japan, S. Korea, Vietnam, India, and the rest of the non-Evil world. Of course it would be nice for Russia to make friends with Germany, but, you see, Germany’s a wild card, it may decide to kick out the occupying army at some point and regain its sovereignty. Clearly the traitor Merkel won’t do it but AfD very well may.

    The proposal on those noted superbrains was the Soviets (who still had no nukes) were to be disarmed by America using, or threatening to use nuclear weapons.

    The US has been an oligarchic dictatorship for some time, and at that point the oligarchs still had hope USSR could be returned to rule by Jews for the goal of Global Bolshevik Dictatorship, which the Evil Empire continues to pursue day-in, day-out. They were wrong, of course, but that is why the “West” helped the USSR after the war, and certainly didn’t consider attacking it. Your “noted luminaries” are entirely irrelevant to the decision-making process in the Evil Empire.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  174. Miro23 says:
    @aleksandar
    You're forgetting one point, Iran will wipe KSA off the map.
    Another issue, how will you support this american force ? ( It will not be a NATO one. )
    By air lift ?

    You’re forgetting one point, Iran will wipe KSA off the map.

    Another issue, how will you support this American force ? ( It will not be a NATO one. )
    By air lift ?

    Quite right. It could well be the end of Saudi Arabia. The Saudis have vulnerable oil installations + a fragile society wholly based on oil revenue (plus plenty of hostile Shias in the oil region).

    I also agree that the logistics of a US invasion are very complicated, since an invasion has to come by sea or air (unless it comes through Iraq) and the buildup has to be at least as large as for the Iraq war (i.e. very large).

    The Neocons may try to resolve the question by leaving aside the “Regime Change” and simply getting the US to destroy Iran from the air. Either way Israel wins (and Iran & the US lose).

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterAUS

    ...an invasion has to come by sea or air (unless it comes through Iraq) and the buildup has to be at least as large as for the Iraq war (i.e. very large).
     
    It will come through Iraq and by sea; air (tactical) part will be integrated into those two.
    And the buildup is the key in all this. We aren't seeing it.............

    Well, that's by the book.

    Now...looking at the current elites and decision makers in Washington, is it really unlikely that they could start a serious confrontation with Iran without any serious thought ?

    I'd say "yes".

    I base that on how Trump won the election and how he's been managing his Presidency since.
    And actually all this shit in USA since the election.

    We are not ruled by smart puppet masters.
    Just look at them..........

    We are in uncharted waters here.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  175. Corvinus says:
    @Harold Smith
    "'There you go again, implying that “Christian virtue”, e.g., trying to be honest with yourself and others, is some kind of esoteric, irrelevant, pie in the sky.'

    Yet another strawman on your part. Christian virtue is worthy…as are other virtues that people espouse."

    Sorry but you're not making very much sense.

    "'There’s nothing sophistic about the painfully obvious fact that in many if not most states…'

    I wasn’t referring to those trends as sophistry. I was referring to your insistence that Christian virtue is the end all and be all, and anyone who neglects to embrace is is other than honest and virtuous."

    There you go again with another ridiculous strawman, implying that “Christian virtue”, e.g., trying to be honest with yourself and others, is some kind of esoteric, irrelevant, pie in the sky.

    As I said, anyone who can look at something that's painfully obvious, and yet still deny it, is being dishonest.

    Consider the example of intellectual dishonesty that you demonstrated earlier in this discussion. When I referred to you as an example to make the point that I have no control over your moral incompetence and your spiritual blindness, you protested that it was not a rhetorical example. You apparently took the position that I was somehow impugning your character. Yet even after I pointed out to you the quotation marks I used, and demonstrated the generally accepted usage of quotation marks to denote "not literally", you refused to cede the point.

    It was "painfully obvious" from the context of the statement I made and from the quotation marks that my statement was purely rhetorical, and yet you still refused to acknowledge it.

    Please explain in what sense of "virtue" your refusal to admit that you were incorrect should not be seen as dishonesty.

    "'By “going down”, I meant that America’s “serious decline” is irreversible.'

    Now you offer clarification."

    LOL! As if was not obvious.

    "Do trends in current America indicate serious decline? Yes. Is it irreversible? No."

    Well of course it's irreversible. That's one reason why they're trying to start a world war, for example. And being that it's painfully obviously irreversible, yet you refuse to admit it, you're being dishonest.

    "As I stated earlier, throughout our history America has experienced significant issues–see "Gilded Age'. People at that time felt reforms could not 'save' the United States. They were proven wrong. Again, for you to describe the problems as being insoluble, that would be an assertion on your part, not fact and certainly not truth."

    Of course I am certainly making an assertion. I assert that America is going down because of corruption, which is everywhere, and which is irreversible. And you are also making an assertion, but unlike my assertion, yours is a completely unfounded bare assertion. You're just being contrary.

    “There you go again with another ridiculous strawman, implying that “Christian virtue”, e.g., trying to be honest with yourself and others, is some kind of esoteric, irrelevant, pie in the sky.”

    There you go again completely mischaracterizing my statement. It’s really simple. Do you believe that “Christian virtue” is THE standard by which all other people must abide by? Yes or no–why.

    “When I referred to you as an example to make the point that I have no control over your moral incompetence and your spiritual blindness…”

    Just stop. Do you believe I am morally incompetent and spiritually blind? Yes or no–why.

    “And being that it’s painfully obviously irreversible, yet you refuse to admit it, you’re being dishonest.”

    YOU believe these trends are irreversible. Anyone who says otherwise, to YOU, is dishonest. YOU automatically dismiss any alternative point of view. It is intellectually sterile on your part here.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Harold Smith
    "YOU believe these trends are irreversible."

    Whether or not the "trends" are irreversible depends on what's causing them. Do you dispute that? And the direct or indirect cause of most, if not all of these destructive "trends" is massive corruption. Do you dispute that? And the only cure for such corruption would be a massive spiritual revival. Do you dispute that?

    "Anyone who says otherwise, to YOU, is dishonest."

    Anyone who says otherwise, apparently just for the sake of saying otherwise, without proffering any meaningful counterargument, while ignoring the painfully obvious corruption that touches every aspect of life in the U.S., is being dishonest, IMO.


    "YOU automatically dismiss any alternative point of view."

    I automatically dismiss any alternative point of view (such as yours) that has no substantive argument in support of it. Unfortunately your apparent "argument" that "America is not collapsing now because it has never collapsed before" doesn't rise to the level of substantive.


    "It is intellectually sterile on your part here."

    I'm sorry, but your lack of an argument and your studious refusal to accept the obvious, reflects poorly on you, not on me.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  176. peterAUS says:
    @Miro23

    You’re forgetting one point, Iran will wipe KSA off the map.

    Another issue, how will you support this American force ? ( It will not be a NATO one. )
    By air lift ?

     

    Quite right. It could well be the end of Saudi Arabia. The Saudis have vulnerable oil installations + a fragile society wholly based on oil revenue (plus plenty of hostile Shias in the oil region).

    I also agree that the logistics of a US invasion are very complicated, since an invasion has to come by sea or air (unless it comes through Iraq) and the buildup has to be at least as large as for the Iraq war (i.e. very large).

    The Neocons may try to resolve the question by leaving aside the "Regime Change" and simply getting the US to destroy Iran from the air. Either way Israel wins (and Iran & the US lose).

    …an invasion has to come by sea or air (unless it comes through Iraq) and the buildup has to be at least as large as for the Iraq war (i.e. very large).

    It will come through Iraq and by sea; air (tactical) part will be integrated into those two.
    And the buildup is the key in all this. We aren’t seeing it………….

    Well, that’s by the book.

    Now…looking at the current elites and decision makers in Washington, is it really unlikely that they could start a serious confrontation with Iran without any serious thought ?

    I’d say “yes”.

    I base that on how Trump won the election and how he’s been managing his Presidency since.
    And actually all this shit in USA since the election.

    We are not ruled by smart puppet masters.
    Just look at them……….

    We are in uncharted waters here.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Miro23

    It will come through Iraq and by sea; air (tactical) part will be integrated into those two.
    And the buildup is the key in all this. We aren’t seeing it………….
     
    That's true enough. There's the same Washington Neo-con war fever as pre-Iraq so the possibilities seem to be:

    1) We're waiting for the False Flag. The buildup comes after this.
    2) We're waiting for the False Flag. A purely aerial (missile and bombing) destruction of Iran follows without an invasion.

    The problem with 1) is that the US military is already over stretched, and probably couldn't mount an Iraqi scale invasion even if they wanted to, which suggests that the answer is 2), the aerial destruction of Iran.

    But 2) also has its problems - the missile/anti-missile question, and the exposure of launch ships/bases, plus, of course, possible Russian involvement and the risk of escalation.

    So, altogether an unbelievably stupid and dangerous project for the US, with plenty of potential political blowback domestically (we didn't vote for this) and in Europe (you broke our Joint Iran Nuclear Treaty) - not to mention from Russia and China.
    , @reiner Tor

    It will come through Iraq and by sea
     
    Iraq is actually an Iranian ally. Sort of, anyway. All kinds of contingencies can and probably will happen. Like Iraq refusing to allow American troops to build up for the attack. Or suddenly raise objections and create obstacles while the operation is already underway, or shortly before.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  177. @Sean

    Under your theory of surrender to terrorists (like the US), Russia should never use nukes, even if it is losing.
     
    According to me, Russia should say it would use nukes and that is what Putin is doing. Tis a bluff just like Cold War Nato implying they would use nukes to stop o Soviet invasion of western Europe, which the Soviets never had any intention or plan for anyway. The armed forces may think differently, but they are dreaming and the order would not be given.

    What people do and what they say they will do (to frighten anyone from testing them) are different. Russia talks big because it is relatively weak and getting weaker. The US is secure and does not have to be strident. Neither one would use nukes, both could reasonably expect to fight and win any conventional attack on its homeland. War to conquer territory as Hitler tried is obsolete and Russia has nothing else but land, so no one is going to invade them for that reason. Russia must inevitably fall under the sway of America and become part of an alliance against the mega power that China is destined to become. China might slap the Russians down by a conventional offensive.
    Jeremy Black writes


    The vulnerability of the Russian Far East to Chinese attack from Manchuria makes the situation very different to operating into Siberia. For the Chinese, an advance overland to the Sea of Okhotsk in order to cut off the region, followed by the capture of Vladivostok might appear a tempting 'small war'...
     
    There is not going to be any nuclear exchange because the US is not going to start one, and as already stated the US is not going to attack Russia with nukes under any circumstances. Kissinger was brought in to explain the facts of life to President Ray-gun, and Reagan was advised by Kissinger to never initiate the use of nuclear weapons.

    Interesting comment, as usual.

    But I’d firmly reject the notion that Russian has nothing but land. It’s hard to understand this claim given the enormous proven reserves of oil, natural gas, and commercially/industrially valuable minerals in Russia.

    As for war as a means of gaining territory being obsolete, what exactly is Turkey doing right now in occupying part of Syria? Turkey surely wants to kill some battle-experienced Kurds, prevent the formation/continuation of a de facto Kurdish State near Turkey, and prevent the Kurds on the Syrian and Iraqi sides from linking up with the millions of Kurds living in Turkey.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    I hit send before finished...... Clearly Turkey has non-territorial reasons for its incursion into Syrian territory. But there's no reason to think that Turkey won't simply keep its troops there longer-term, and eventually try to make that land effectively part of Turkey, if the USA or Russia don't deter or threaten Turkey out of doing so.

    No way is war for territory a thing of the past. There's no "end of history" in this respect like so many others. War for land -- and especially war for WATER -- will continue and likely intensify as the planet becomes more overcrowded relative to clean water supplies.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  178. @RadicalCenter
    Interesting comment, as usual.

    But I'd firmly reject the notion that Russian has nothing but land. It's hard to understand this claim given the enormous proven reserves of oil, natural gas, and commercially/industrially valuable minerals in Russia.

    As for war as a means of gaining territory being obsolete, what exactly is Turkey doing right now in occupying part of Syria? Turkey surely wants to kill some battle-experienced Kurds, prevent the formation/continuation of a de facto Kurdish State near Turkey, and prevent the Kurds on the Syrian and Iraqi sides from linking up with the millions of Kurds living in Turkey.

    I hit send before finished…… Clearly Turkey has non-territorial reasons for its incursion into Syrian territory. But there’s no reason to think that Turkey won’t simply keep its troops there longer-term, and eventually try to make that land effectively part of Turkey, if the USA or Russia don’t deter or threaten Turkey out of doing so.

    No way is war for territory a thing of the past. There’s no “end of history” in this respect like so many others. War for land — and especially war for WATER — will continue and likely intensify as the planet becomes more overcrowded relative to clean water supplies.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  179. @Sean
    The Russians are committed in the Ukraine and serious support for the Iranian Regime would see the US giving crucial extra backing to the Ukrainian government forces.

    US program for crushing Iran
    Phase one: They will start with limited raids on suspected nuclear facilities to humiliate Iran, and extreme sanctions that will destroy the prospects of the disproportionately young middle class, thus creating discontent.

    Phase two: Covert military action against Iran will be designed to humiliate it and splinter minority statelets off of it (Iran is not immune to this).

    Phase three: The leaders of Iran having been made to look totally unable to uphold the integrity of the country or provide a standard of living for its population, an uprising will start.

    Phase four: To protect innocent civilians, the US will intervene and destroy the Iranian armed forces.

    Does anyone know how concentrated the Azeri population is in a particular corner of Iran?

    How well are the Azeris assimilated? Do most Azeris in Iran feel loyalty to Iran as a nation and a culture?

    Would the Azeris take the chance to break off a chunk of Iran for themselves if an outside power like the USA provided serious armaments and support?

    Would Azerbaijan (with the approval of big brother Turkey) send arms and volunteers to help an Azeri separatist revolution in Iran if it looked like they could win and gravely damage rival Iran?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  180. @Corvinus
    "There you go again with another ridiculous strawman, implying that “Christian virtue”, e.g., trying to be honest with yourself and others, is some kind of esoteric, irrelevant, pie in the sky."

    There you go again completely mischaracterizing my statement. It's really simple. Do you believe that "Christian virtue" is THE standard by which all other people must abide by? Yes or no--why.

    "When I referred to you as an example to make the point that I have no control over your moral incompetence and your spiritual blindness..."

    Just stop. Do you believe I am morally incompetent and spiritually blind? Yes or no--why.

    "And being that it’s painfully obviously irreversible, yet you refuse to admit it, you’re being dishonest."

    YOU believe these trends are irreversible. Anyone who says otherwise, to YOU, is dishonest. YOU automatically dismiss any alternative point of view. It is intellectually sterile on your part here.

    “YOU believe these trends are irreversible.”

    Whether or not the “trends” are irreversible depends on what’s causing them. Do you dispute that? And the direct or indirect cause of most, if not all of these destructive “trends” is massive corruption. Do you dispute that? And the only cure for such corruption would be a massive spiritual revival. Do you dispute that?

    “Anyone who says otherwise, to YOU, is dishonest.”

    Anyone who says otherwise, apparently just for the sake of saying otherwise, without proffering any meaningful counterargument, while ignoring the painfully obvious corruption that touches every aspect of life in the U.S., is being dishonest, IMO.

    “YOU automatically dismiss any alternative point of view.”

    I automatically dismiss any alternative point of view (such as yours) that has no substantive argument in support of it. Unfortunately your apparent “argument” that “America is not collapsing now because it has never collapsed before” doesn’t rise to the level of substantive.

    “It is intellectually sterile on your part here.”

    I’m sorry, but your lack of an argument and your studious refusal to accept the obvious, reflects poorly on you, not on me.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    “America is not collapsing now because it has never collapsed before”

    I never made that statement. I said, "As I stated earlier, throughout our history America has experienced significant issues–see “Gilded Age’. People at that time felt reforms could not ‘save’ the United States. They were proven wrong. Again, for you to describe the problems as being insoluble, that would be an assertion on your part, not fact and certainly not truth.”

    "Whether or not the “trends” are irreversible depends on what’s causing them. Do you dispute that?"

    Assuming that the causes will lead to something that is irreversible.

    "And the direct or indirect cause of most, if not all of these destructive “trends” is massive corruption."

    Massive corruption is one of several causes. It being THE cause is up for legitimate debate.

    "And the only cure for such corruption would be a massive spiritual revival. Do you dispute that?"

    Let's try again. This time, stay focused.

    Do you believe that “Christian virtue” is THE standard by which all other people must abide by? Yes or no–why.

    Is this massive spiritual revival squarely dependent upon people embracing "Christian virtue"? Yes or no--why.

    Do you believe I am morally incompetent and spiritually blind? Yes or no–why.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  181. Miro23 says:
    @peterAUS

    ...an invasion has to come by sea or air (unless it comes through Iraq) and the buildup has to be at least as large as for the Iraq war (i.e. very large).
     
    It will come through Iraq and by sea; air (tactical) part will be integrated into those two.
    And the buildup is the key in all this. We aren't seeing it.............

    Well, that's by the book.

    Now...looking at the current elites and decision makers in Washington, is it really unlikely that they could start a serious confrontation with Iran without any serious thought ?

    I'd say "yes".

    I base that on how Trump won the election and how he's been managing his Presidency since.
    And actually all this shit in USA since the election.

    We are not ruled by smart puppet masters.
    Just look at them..........

    We are in uncharted waters here.

    It will come through Iraq and by sea; air (tactical) part will be integrated into those two.
    And the buildup is the key in all this. We aren’t seeing it………….

    That’s true enough. There’s the same Washington Neo-con war fever as pre-Iraq so the possibilities seem to be:

    1) We’re waiting for the False Flag. The buildup comes after this.
    2) We’re waiting for the False Flag. A purely aerial (missile and bombing) destruction of Iran follows without an invasion.

    The problem with 1) is that the US military is already over stretched, and probably couldn’t mount an Iraqi scale invasion even if they wanted to, which suggests that the answer is 2), the aerial destruction of Iran.

    But 2) also has its problems – the missile/anti-missile question, and the exposure of launch ships/bases, plus, of course, possible Russian involvement and the risk of escalation.

    So, altogether an unbelievably stupid and dangerous project for the US, with plenty of potential political blowback domestically (we didn’t vote for this) and in Europe (you broke our Joint Iran Nuclear Treaty) – not to mention from Russia and China.

    Read More
    • Agree: RadicalCenter
    • Replies: @peterAUS

    But 2) also has its problems....
     
    The biggest is the blocking of Hormuz.
    Or, who knows, maybe that's something Washington wouldn't mind. Hard to say. Hell, hard to say anything about what's going on there and what could be going on in near future.

    And, as for false flag, not really.
    Washington can make happen a real attack, by Iran, on some ship or shooting down a plane. All they need to do is start provoking.
    Manufacturing "casus belli" shouldn't be a problem for US elites.
    I mean....last time Trump did something stupid with weapons his ratings jumped up. And that was launching into the area with Russians.

    Voting you say?
    I am absolutely positive, should Washington launch any sort of conflict save direct with Russia and China, we'll see again "support the troops".
    Hell, Obama had TWO terms to pull out of Afghanistan and Iraq and he was elected into office based on "anti-Bush wars" mantra.

    I am not saying that the war with Iran is given.
    I am saying that the decision about it will be made solely based on US internal power play and politics. And so far all that has been simply chaotic.

    Dangerous uncertainty, we have zero control over, is the world we live in.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  182. peterAUS says:
    @Miro23

    It will come through Iraq and by sea; air (tactical) part will be integrated into those two.
    And the buildup is the key in all this. We aren’t seeing it………….
     
    That's true enough. There's the same Washington Neo-con war fever as pre-Iraq so the possibilities seem to be:

    1) We're waiting for the False Flag. The buildup comes after this.
    2) We're waiting for the False Flag. A purely aerial (missile and bombing) destruction of Iran follows without an invasion.

    The problem with 1) is that the US military is already over stretched, and probably couldn't mount an Iraqi scale invasion even if they wanted to, which suggests that the answer is 2), the aerial destruction of Iran.

    But 2) also has its problems - the missile/anti-missile question, and the exposure of launch ships/bases, plus, of course, possible Russian involvement and the risk of escalation.

    So, altogether an unbelievably stupid and dangerous project for the US, with plenty of potential political blowback domestically (we didn't vote for this) and in Europe (you broke our Joint Iran Nuclear Treaty) - not to mention from Russia and China.

    But 2) also has its problems….

    The biggest is the blocking of Hormuz.
    Or, who knows, maybe that’s something Washington wouldn’t mind. Hard to say. Hell, hard to say anything about what’s going on there and what could be going on in near future.

    And, as for false flag, not really.
    Washington can make happen a real attack, by Iran, on some ship or shooting down a plane. All they need to do is start provoking.
    Manufacturing “casus belli” shouldn’t be a problem for US elites.
    I mean….last time Trump did something stupid with weapons his ratings jumped up. And that was launching into the area with Russians.

    Voting you say?
    I am absolutely positive, should Washington launch any sort of conflict save direct with Russia and China, we’ll see again “support the troops”.
    Hell, Obama had TWO terms to pull out of Afghanistan and Iraq and he was elected into office based on “anti-Bush wars” mantra.

    I am not saying that the war with Iran is given.
    I am saying that the decision about it will be made solely based on US internal power play and politics. And so far all that has been simply chaotic.

    Dangerous uncertainty, we have zero control over, is the world we live in.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  183. @peterAUS

    ...an invasion has to come by sea or air (unless it comes through Iraq) and the buildup has to be at least as large as for the Iraq war (i.e. very large).
     
    It will come through Iraq and by sea; air (tactical) part will be integrated into those two.
    And the buildup is the key in all this. We aren't seeing it.............

    Well, that's by the book.

    Now...looking at the current elites and decision makers in Washington, is it really unlikely that they could start a serious confrontation with Iran without any serious thought ?

    I'd say "yes".

    I base that on how Trump won the election and how he's been managing his Presidency since.
    And actually all this shit in USA since the election.

    We are not ruled by smart puppet masters.
    Just look at them..........

    We are in uncharted waters here.

    It will come through Iraq and by sea

    Iraq is actually an Iranian ally. Sort of, anyway. All kinds of contingencies can and probably will happen. Like Iraq refusing to allow American troops to build up for the attack. Or suddenly raise objections and create obstacles while the operation is already underway, or shortly before.

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterAUS

    Like Iraq refusing to allow American troops to build up for the attack.
     
    You mean a puppet regime in a broken country controlled by US and already having plenty of US military presence doing that? O.K.....

    My take on possible war with Iran, as stated plenty of times before here:
    It shall happen save some major change in the world or US. Don't see that change happening soon.

    What is given:
    The average Iranians will have a Hell on Earth.
    The US underclass will get another shit sandwich to swallow.

    And there will be winners in all that, as in all wars so far, unless it goes MAD which I believe it will not.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments